Populations

Artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed to synthesize large-scale public input in policy consultations and participatory processes. Yet no formal framework exists for auditing whether these summaries faithfully represent the source population, an accountability gap that existing approaches to AI explainability, grounding and hallucination detection do not address because they focus on output quality rather than input fidelity. Here, participatory provenance is introduced: a measurement framework grounded in optimal transport theory, causal inference and semantic analysis that tracks how individual public submissions are transformed, filtered or lost through AI-mediated summarization. Applied to Canada's 2025-2026 national AI Strategy consultation ($n = 5{,}253$ respondents across two independent policy topics), the framework reveals that both official government summaries underperform a random-participant baseline ($-9.1\%$ and $-8.0\%$ coverage degradation), with $16.9\%$ and $15.3\%$ of participants effectively excluded. Exclusion concentrates in clusters expressing dissent, scepticism and critique of AI ($33$-$88\%$ exclusion rates). Brevity, semantic isolation and rhetorical register independently predict representational outcome. An accompanying open-source interactive tool, the Co-creation Provenance Lab, enables policymakers to audit and iteratively improve summaries, establishing genuine human-in-the-loop oversight at scale.

The evaluation of machine learning models typically relies mainly on performance metrics based on loss functions, which risk to overlook changes in performance in relevant subgroups. Auditing tools such as SliceFinder and SliceLine were proposed to detect such groups, but usually have conceptual disadvantages, such as the inability to directly address continuous covariates. In this paper, we introduce FairTree, a novel algorithm adapted from psychometric invariance testing. Unlike SliceFinder and related algorithms, FairTree directly handles continuous, categorical, and ordinal features without discretization. It further decomposes performance disparities into systematic bias and variance, allowing a categorization of changes in algorithm performance. We propose and evaluate two variations of the algorithm: a permutation-based approach, which is conceptually closer to SliceFinder, and a fluctuation test. Through simulation studies that include a direct comparison with SliceLine, we demonstrate that both approaches have a satisfactory rate of false-positive results, but that the fluctuation approach has relatively higher power. We further illustrate the method on the UCI Adult Census dataset. The proposed algorithms provide a flexible framework for the statistical evaluation of the performance and aspects of fairness of machine learning models in a wide range of applications even in relatively small data.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in dynamic, real-world settings, where the distribution of user prompts can shift substantially over time as new tasks, prompts, and users are introduced to a deployed model. Such natural prompt distribution shift poses a major challenge to LLM reliability, particularly for specialized models designed for narrow domains or user populations. Despite attention to out-of-distribution robustness, there is very limited exploration of measuring natural prompt distribution shift in prior work, and its impact on deployed LLMs remains poorly understood. We introduce the LLM Evaluation under Natural prompt Shift (LENS) framework: a data-centric approach for quantifying natural prompt distribution shift and evaluating its effect on the performance of deployed LLMs. We perform a large-scale evaluation using 192 real-world post-deployment prompt shift settings over time, user group, and geographic axes, training a total of 81 models on 4.68M training prompts, and evaluating on 57.6k prompts. We find that even moderate shifts in user prompt behavior correspond with large performance drops (73% average loss) in deployed LLMs. This performance degradation is particularly prevalent when users from different latent groups and geographic regions interact with models and is correlated with natural prompt distribution shift over time. We systematically characterize how LLM instruction following ability degrades over time and between user groups. Our findings highlight the critical need for data-driven monitoring to ensure LLM performance remains stable across diverse and evolving user populations.

Current knowledge graph (KG) construction methods are confirmatory, focusing on recovering known relationships rather than identifying novel or context-dependent nodes. This paper proposes a phenotype-driven and evidence-governed framework that shifts the paradigm toward structured hypothesis discovery and controlled KG expansion. The approach integrates graph neural networks (GNNs) for phenotype discovery, causal inference, probabilistic reasoning and large language models (LLMs) for hypothesis generation and claim extraction within a unified pipeline. The framework prioritizes relationships that are both structurally supported by data and underexplored in the literature. KG expansion is formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem, where candidate claims are jointly evaluated in terms of relevance, structural validation and novelty. Pareto-optimal selection enables the identification of non-dominated claims that balance confirmation and discovery, avoiding trivial or redundant knowledge inclusion. Experiments on heterogeneous population datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework produces more interpretable phenotypes, reveals context-dependent causal structures and generates high-quality claims that align with both data and scientific evidence. Compared to rule-based and LLM-only baselines, the method achieves the best trade-off across plausibility, novelty, validation and relevance. In retrieval-augmented settings, it significantly improves performance (Recall@5=0.98) while reducing hallucination rates (0.05), highlighting its effectiveness in grounding LLM outputs.

While InfoNCE underlies modern contrastive learning, its geometric mechanisms remain under-characterized beyond the canonical alignment--uniformity decomposition. We develop a measure-theoretic framework in which representation measures evolve on a fixed embedding manifold. In the large-batch limit, we prove value and gradient consistency, linking the stochastic objective to explicit deterministic energy landscapes and revealing a geometric bifurcation between unimodal and symmetric multimodal regimes. In the unimodal case, the intrinsic energy is strictly convex and admits a unique Gibbs equilibrium, showing that entropy acts as a tie-breaker within the aligned basin. In the multimodal case, the intrinsic geometry becomes cross-coupled and contains a persistent negative symmetric divergence term: each modality's marginal reshapes the effective landscape of the other, allowing strong pairwise alignment to coexist with a persistent modality gap. Controlled synthetic experiments and analyses of pretrained CLIP representations support these predictions. Overall, our results shift the analytical lens from pointwise discrimination to population geometry, showing that pairwise alignment alone is insufficient to control cross-modal marginal structure.