Position

This position paper argues that behavioural assurance, even when carefully designed, is being asked to carry safety claims it cannot verify. AI governance frameworks enacted between 2019 and early 2026 require reviewable evidence of properties such as the absence of hidden objectives, resistance to loss-of-control precursors, and bounded catastrophic capability; current assurance methodologies (primarily behavioural evaluations and red-teaming) are epistemically limited to observable model outputs and cannot verify the latent representations or long-horizon agentic behaviours these frameworks presume to regulate. We formalize this structural mismatch as the audit gap, the divergence between required and achievable verification access, and introduce the concept of fragile assurance to describe cases where the evidential structure does not support the asserted safety claim. Through an analysis of a 21-instrument inventory, we identify an incentive gradient where geopolitical and industrial pressures systematically reward surface-level behavioral proxies over deep structural verification. Finally, we propose a technical pivot: bounding the weight of behavioral evidence in legal text and extending voluntary pre-deployment access with mechanistic-evidence classes, specifically linear probes, activation patching, and before/after-training comparisons.

Machine learning research increasingly bifurcates into two disconnected modes: benchmark-driven engineering that prioritizes metrics over understanding, and idealized theory that often fails to transfer to modern systems. In this position paper, we argue that the field focuses too heavily on these endpoints, neglecting the central scientific object: the idea. We propose an Ideas First framework in which ideas are valued for the behavioral signatures they predict in modern models, and these signatures are tested through tailored experiments designed to detect the relevant patterns rather than to win leaderboards. This shift not only bridges the gap between theory and practice but also promotes equity by removing the "complexity premium," enabling rigorous scientific contributions from researchers with modest computational, financial, and human resources. Ultimately, we advocate for a research culture centered on ideas, treating benchmarks and theorems as instruments for testing mechanistic hypotheses rather than as ends in themselves.

Assistive agents for Blind and Visually Impaired (BVI) users require accessibility alignment as a first-class design objective. Despite rapid progress in agentic AI, most systems are designed and evaluated under assumptions of sighted interaction, low-cost verification, and tolerable trial-and-error, leading to systematic failures in assistive scenarios that cannot be resolved by model scaling or post-hoc interface adaptations alone. Drawing on an analysis of 778 assistance task instances from prior work, we show that current agentic AI remain prone to failure in assistive scenarios due to mismatches between sighted-user design assumptions and the verification, risk, and interaction constraints faced by BVI users. We argue that accessibility should be treated as an alignment problem rather than a peripheral usability concern. To this end, we introduce accessibility alignment and propose a lifecycle-oriented design pipeline for accessibility-aligned assistive agents, spanning user research, system design, deployment and post-deployment iteration. We conclude that BVI-centered assistive tasks provide a critical stress test for agentic AI and motivate a broader shift toward inclusive agent design.

Reliable real-time 3D localization is essential for multi-UAV navigation, collision avoidance, and coordinated flight, yet onboard estimates can degrade under GNSS multipath, non-line-of-sight reception, vertical drift, and intentional interference. This paper presents a decentralized, lightweight 3D position-refinement layer that improves robustness by fusing each Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)'s local estimate with neighbor-shared state summaries and inter-UAV range or proximity constraints. The method performs uncertainty-aware neighborhood fusion by weighting each UAV's prior according to its reported covariance and weighting neighbor constraints according to link quality, ranging uncertainty, and a learned trust score. To support practical deployment, the framework explicitly handles cold start and temporary localization loss by inflating or substituting weak priors, allowing trusted neighborhood constraints to bootstrap and stabilize estimates until absolute sensing recovers. To mitigate the impact of faulty or malicious participants, each UAV applies a local range-consistency check, smoothed over time, to down-weight or exclude neighbors whose reported positions are incompatible with observed inter-UAV distances. Simulation experiments with 10 UAVs in a 3D volume show that the proposed refinement substantially reduces mean localization error during cold start, remains competitive after local estimators stabilize, and maintains lower error as the fraction of malicious nodes increases compared with fusion without trust. These results suggest that the approach can serve as a practical resilience layer for swarm operation in challenging environments.

Data is fundamental to large language models (LLMs). However, understanding of what makes certain data useful for different stages of an LLM workflow, including training, tuning, alignment, in-context learning, etc., and why, remains an open question. Current approaches rely heavily on extensive experimentation with large public datasets to obtain empirical heuristics for data filtering and dataset construction. These approaches are compute intensive and lack a principled way of understanding the essence of how specific data characteristics drive LLM behavior. In this position paper, we advocate for the need of developing systematic methodologies for generating synthetic sequences from appropriately defined random processes, with the goal that these sequences can reveal useful characteristics when they are used in one or multiple stages of the LLM workflow. We refer to such sequences as data probes. By observing LLM behavior on data probes, researchers can systematically conduct studies on how data characteristics influence model performance, generalization, and robustness. The probing sequences exhibit statistical properties that can be viewed using theoretical concepts, such as typical sets, which are generalized to describe the behaviors of LLMs. This data-probe approach provides a pathway for uncovering foundational insights into the role of data in LLM training and inference, beyond empirical heuristics.

With the growing prevalence of always-on hardware such as smart glasses, body cameras, and home security systems, life-logging visual sensing is becoming inevitable, forming the backbone of persistent, always-on AI systems. Meanwhile, recent advances in proactive agents and world models signal a fundamental shift from episodic, prompt-driven tools to next-generation AI systems that continuously perceive and react to the physical world. Although life-logging video streams can substantially improve utility of these promising systems, they also introduce significant privacy risks by revealing sensitive information, such as behavioral patterns, emotional states, and social interactions, beyond what isolated images expose. If unresolved, these risks may undermine public trust and hinder the sustainable development of always-on AI technologies. Existing privacy protections are either attack-specific or incur substantial utility loss, and fail to consider the entire data exploitation pipeline. We therefore posit that the privacy-utility trade-off in life-logging video streams is a foundational challenge for next-generation AI systems that demands further investigation. We call for novel pipeline-aware privacy-preserving designs that jointly optimize utility and privacy for long-horizon life-logging visual data. In parallel, formal privacy leakage metrics and standardized benchmarks remain important open directions for future research.

The implicit policy of maintaining relatively stable acceptance rates at top AI conferences, despite exponentially growing submissions, introduces a critical structural vulnerability. This position paper characterizes a new systemic threat we term Agentic Denominator Gaming, in which a malicious actor deploys AI agents to generate and submit a large volume of superficially plausible but low-quality papers. Crucially, their objective is not the acceptance of low-quality papers, but rather to inflate the submission denominator and overwhelm reviewing capacity. Under a relatively stable acceptance rate, this dilution can systematically increase the publication probability of a small, targeted set of legitimate papers. We analyze the practical feasibility of this threat and its broader consequences, including intensified reviewer burnout, degraded review quality, and the emergence of industrialized automated agent mills. Finally, we propose and evaluate a range of mitigation strategies, and argue that durable protection will require system-level policy and incentive reforms, rather than relying primarily on technical detection alone.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across diverse tasks. However, their deployment in long-context scenarios faces high computational overhead and information redundancy. While soft prompt compression has emerged as a promising way to mitigate these costs by compressing sequences into compact embeddings, existing paradigms remain fundamentally constrained by position bias: they primarily rely on learnable tokens insertion at fixed positions or group tokens according to their physical token layout, thereby inducing performance instability and semantic fragmentation. To overcome this bottleneck, we propose Semantic Consistency Context Compression (SeCo), a method that shifts context compression from position-driven to semantic-driven. Rather than constraint by physical token layout, SeCo dynamically anchors compression directly in the semantic space by selecting query-relevant tokens as semantic centers and aggregating remaining tokens via consistency-weighted merging. This design inherently preserves semantic consistency while eliminating position bias. Extensive experiments on 14 benchmarks across two backbone models demonstrate that SeCo consistently shows superiority in downstream tasks, inference latency, and out-of-domain robustness. The code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/seco-EE5E.

Enterprise workloads are dominated by deterministic, structured, and knowledge-dependent tasks operating under strict cost, latency, and reliability constraints. While these are often addressed through large language model (LLM) deployment or distillation into smaller models, we argue this is inefficient, unreliable, and misaligned with enterprise task structures. Instead, AI systems should treat language models as interfaces rather than monolithic engines, externalizing knowledge and computation into dedicated components for greater reliability, scalability, and transparency. Our theoretical evidences show that finite-capacity models cannot fully capture the breadth of knowledge required for enterprise tasks, creating inherent limits to efficiency and interpretability. Building on this, we take the position that language models should primarily be used for structured extraction in deterministic enterprise workflows, while computation and storage are delegated to knowledge bases and symbolic procedures. We formally demonstrate that such modular architectures are more reliable and maintainable than monolithic frameworks, offering a sustainable foundation for enterprise tasks.

Large language models increasingly face demands to "forget" training data, knowledge, or behaviors due to regulatory deletion obligations, copyright/licensing disputes, and safety or product-policy requirements. This position paper argues that machine unlearning is overused as a term in LLM research and should be reserved for dataset-defined deletion: removing the training influence of a precisely specified forget set such that the resulting model is approximately indistinguishable from retraining without that data. We contend that many tasks currently labeled "unlearning" (e.g., refusal for harmful requests, entity/knowledge removal, or targeted suppression) pursue different, often policy-dependent objectives and therefore require different terminology and baselines (e.g., alignment, suppression, editing, obfuscation). We further argue that this confusion is not cosmetic: because papers make different implicit guarantees under the same label, metrics and benchmarks are frequently reused outside their intended scope, rewarding surface-level non-disclosure (e.g., low ROUGE/forget accuracy) even when retraining-equivalence is not tested and derived capabilities remain. We conclude by calling for stricter terminology tied to explicit guarantees and reference models, and for evaluations that match the claimed objective.

Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list. We call this failure the Position Curse. For instance, even in a two-line code snippet, Claude Opus 4.6 misidentifies the second-to-last line most of the time. To characterize this failure, we evaluated two complementary queries: given a position in a sequence (of letters or words), retrieve the corresponding item; and given an item, return its position. Each position is specified as a forward or backward offset from an anchor, either an endpoint of the list (its start or end) or another item in the list. Across both open-source and frontier closed-source models, backward retrieval substantially lags forward retrieval. To test whether this capability can be rescued by post-training, we constructed PosBench, a position-focused training dataset. LoRA fine-tuning improves both forward and backward retrieval and generalizes to a held-out code-understanding benchmark (PyIndex), yet absolute performance remains far from saturated. As LLM coding agents increasingly operate over large codebases where precise indexing becomes essential for code understanding and editing, position-based retrieval emerges as a key capability for future pretraining objectives and model design.

Embodied AI (EAI) systems are rapidly transitioning from simulations into real-world domestic and other sensitive environments. However, recent EAI solutions have largely demonstrated advancements within isolated stages such as instruction, perception, planning and interaction, without considering their coupled privacy implications in high-frequency deployments where privacy leakage is often irreversible. This position paper argues that optimizing these components independently creates a systemic privacy crisis when deployed in sensitive settings, thereby advancing the position that privacy in EAI is a life cycle-level architectural constraint rather than a stage-local feature. To address these challenges, we propose Secure Privacy Integration in Next-generation Embodied AI (SPINE), a unified privacy-aware framework that treats privacy as a dynamic control signal governing cross-stage coupling throughout the entire EAI life cycle. SPINE decomposes the EAI pipeline into various stages and establishes a multi-criterion privacy classification matrix to orchestrate contextual sensitivity across stage boundaries. We conduct preliminary simulation and real-world case studies to conceptually validate how privacy constraints propagate downstream to reshape system behavior, illustrating the insufficiency of fragmented privacy patches and motivating future research directions into secure yet functional embodied AI systems. We detail the SPINE framework and case studies at https://github.com/rminshen03/EAI_Privacy_Position.

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), classic graph learning tasks have greatly benefited from LLMs, including improved encoding of textual features, more efficient construction of graphs from text, and enhanced reasoning over knowledge graphs. In this paper, we ask a complementary question: How can graphs help LLMs? We address this question from three perspectives: 1) graphs provide an up-to-date knowledge source that helps reduce LLM hallucinations, 2) graph-based prompting techniques-such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Tree-of-Thought (ToT), and Graph-of-Thought (GoT)-enhance LLM reasoning capabilities, and 3) integrating graphs into LLMs improves their understanding of structured data, expanding their applicability to domains such as e-commerce, code, and relational databases (RDBs). We further outlook some future directions including designing sparse LLM architectures based on graphs and brain-inspired memory systems.

This position paper argues that LLM inference serving has outgrown generic heuristics and now demands mathematical optimization and algorithmic foundations. Despite rapid advances in serving systems such as vLLM and SGLang, their algorithmic cores remain largely unchanged from classical distributed computing: request routing uses join-shortest-queue or round-robin, scheduling defaults to FIFO, and KV cache eviction follows LRU. These general-purpose policies ignore the distinctive structure of LLM inference--dynamically growing KV cache memory, prefill-decode phase asymmetry, unknown output lengths, and continuous batching constraints. We contend that the field must develop mathematical models capturing these characteristics, enabling the design of algorithms with provable performance guarantees across diverse workloads, rather than heuristics that may succeed in some scenarios but fail unpredictably in others. Emerging work at the intersection of operations research and ML systems demonstrates that principled methods can match or exceed heuristic performance while providing theoretical guarantees. We call on the community to recognize algorithmic design for LLM serving as a research frontier.

LLMs excel at predictive tasks and complex reasoning tasks, but many high-value deployments rely on decisions under uncertainty, for example, which tool to call, which expert to consult, or how many resources to invest. While the usefulness and feasibility of Bayesian approaches remain unclear for LLM inference, this position paper argues that the control layer of an agentic AI system (that orchestrates LLMs and tools) is a clear case where Bayesian principles should shine. Bayesian decision theory provides a framework for agentic systems that can help to maintain beliefs over task-relevant latent quantities, to update these beliefs from observed agentic and human-AI interactions, and to choose actions. Making LLMs themselves explicitly Bayesian belief-updating engines remains computationally intensive and conceptually nontrivial as a general modeling target. In contrast, this paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system, not necessarily the LLM agent parameters. This paper articulates practical properties for Bayesian control that fit modern agentic AI systems and human-AI collaboration, and provides concrete examples and design patterns to illustrate how calibrated beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.

While In-Context Learning (ICL) is extensively studied in Autoregressive (AR) LLMs, its mechanism within Diffusion Large Language Models (dLLMs) remains largely unexplored. Unlike AR models restricted by unidirectional causal masking, dLLMs intrinsically utilize bidirectional attention, offering extensive spatial flexibility for query placement. Unfortunately, current practices conventionally inherit AR-style trailing-query templates, often overlooking the structural paradigm shift. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis unveiling that query position is actually a first-order variable in dLLMs. Through empirical decoupling, we demonstrate that positional variance impacts generation quality on par with example semantic quality. Internally, this positional sensitivity stems from a spatial ``Recency Effect'' in attention flow and task-dependent shifts in decoding trajectories. To mitigate this instability without ground-truth labels, we reveal that traditional single-step confidence ($C_{decoded}$) fails in dLLMs. Instead, we propose Average Confidence ($\overline{C}$), a novel metric tracking the iterative decoding process. By establishing the foundational spatial ICL baselines, we introduce Auto-ICL, a training-free adaptive routing strategy that dynamically optimizes query placement, robustly approaching oracle performance across heterogeneous reasoning and perception tasks.

Building trustworthy AI systems for mental health support is a shared priority across stakeholders from multiple disciplines. However, "trustworthy" remains loosely defined and inconsistently operationalized. AI research often focuses on technical criteria (e.g., robustness, explainability, and safety), while therapeutic practitioners emphasize therapeutic fidelity (e.g., appropriateness, empathy, and long-term user outcomes). To bridge the fragmented landscape, we propose a three-layer trust framework, covering human-oriented, AI-oriented, and interaction-oriented trust, integrating the viewpoints of key stakeholders (e.g., practitioners, researchers, regulators). Using this framework, we systematically review existing AI-driven research in mental health domain and examine evaluation practices for ``trustworthy'' ranging from automatic metrics to clinically validated approaches. We highlight critical gaps between what NLP currently measures and what real-world mental health contexts require, and outline a research agenda for building socio-technically aligned and genuinely trustworthy AI for mental health support.

Increasingly, studies are exploring using Large Language Models (LLMs) for accelerated or scaled qualitative analysis of text data. While we can compare LLM accuracy against human labels directly for deductive coding, or labeling text, it is more challenging to judge the ethics and effectiveness of using LLMs in abstractive methods such as inductive thematic analysis. We collaborate with psychologists to study the abstractive claims LLMs make about human life stories, asking, how does using an LLM as an interpreter of meaning affect the conclusions and perspectives of a study? We propose a summarization-based pipeline for surfacing biases in perspective-taking an LLM might employ in interpreting these life stories. We demonstrate that our pipeline can identify both race and gender bias with the potential for representational harm. Finally, we encourage the use of this analysis in future studies involving LLM-based interpretation of study participants' written text or transcribed speech to characterize a positionality portrait for the study.

As generative AI faces intensifying legal challenges, the machine learning community has increasingly relied on post-hoc mitigation -- especially machine unlearning and inference-time guardrails -- to argue for compliance. This paper argues that such post-hoc mitigation methods cannot retroactively cure liability from unlawful acquisition and training, because compliance hinges on data lineage, not the outputs. Our argument has three parts. First, unauthorized copying/ingestion can be a legally complete completed act, and model weights may operate as fixed copies that retain training-derived expressive value, making later filtering beside the point for infringement. Second, contract and tort/unfair-competition rules -- via licenses, terms of service, and anti-free-riding principles -- can independently restrict access and use, often bypassing copyright defenses (e.g., fair use or TDM exceptions). Third, since value from protected inputs can persist in weights, remedies such as unjust enrichment and disgorgement may require stripping gains and, in some cases, reaching the model itself. We therefore argue for a shift from Post-Hoc Sanitization to verifiable Ex-Ante Process Compliance.

Fixed Radius Near Neighbor (FRNN) search is an alternative to the widely used k Nearest Neighbors (kNN) search. Unlike kNN, FRNN determines a label or an estimate for a test sample based on all training samples within a predefined distance. While this approach is beneficial in certain scenarios, assuming a fixed maximum distance for all training samples can decrease the accuracy of the FRNN. Therefore, in this paper we propose the Adaptive Radius Near Neighbor (ARNN) and the Weighted ARNN (WARNN), which employ adaptive distances and in latter case weights. All three methods are compared to kNN and twelve of its variants for a regression problem, namely WiFi fingerprinting indoor positioning, using 22 different datasets to provide a comprehensive analysis. While the performances of the tested FRNN and ARNN versions were amongst the worse, three of the four best methods in the test were WARNN versions, indicating that using weights together with adaptive distances achieves performance comparable or even better than kNN variants.

Despite the remarkable capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), they still suffer from visual fading in long-context scenarios. Specifically, the attention to visual tokens diminishes as the text sequence lengthens, leading to text generation detached from visual constraints. We attribute this degradation to the inherent inductive bias of Multimodal RoPE, which penalizes inter-modal attention as the distance between visual and text tokens increases. To address this, we propose inter-modal Distance Invariant Position Encoding (DIPE), a simple but effective mechanism that disentangles position encoding based on modality interactions. DIPE retains the natural relative positioning for intra-modal interactions to preserve local structure, while enforcing an anchored perceptual proximity for inter-modal interactions. This strategy effectively mitigates the inter-modal distance-based penalty, ensuring that visual signals remain perceptually consistent regardless of the context length. Experimental results demonstrate that by integrating DIPE with Multimodal RoPE, the model maintains stable visual grounding in long-context scenarios, significantly alleviating visual fading while preserving performance on standard short-context benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/lchen1019/DIPE.

A common belief in multimodal research is that the perceptual weaknesses of vision--language models can be compensated by stronger language reasoning (e.g., chain-of-thought, in-context learning, or external tools). We challenge this assumption. We argue that for a broad class of visual tasks hard to specify in language, failures stem from a structural fatality where the temporal decision of \textit{when} to reason strictly dictates the spatial constraint of \textit{where} reasoning takes place. When visual reasoning is deferred to language generation, current architectures do not merely delay computation; they displace it from the continuous visual representation to a discrete textual space. Consequently, the sequential Perception-then-Reasoning'' paradigm degenerates perception into a passive, one-off feature encoding process, rendering it functionally equivalent to Reasoning-in-Text-Space'', where task-critical spatial signals are collapsed before reasoning begins. We substantiate this claim with the Turing Eye Test (TET): tasks that must be resolved in \emph{visual space} and are hard to verbalize; results show text-only reasoning cannot remedy these perceptual failures. Our findings suggest rethinking the architectural divide: shifting from reasoning \textit{about} perception to reasoning \textit{within} perception. This facilitates actively reasoning-driven perception that operates directly on pixel-level visual representations, rather than within a collapsed textual space.

While sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have generated significant excitement, a series of negative results have added to skepticism about their usefulness. Here, we establish a conceptual distinction that reconciles competing narratives surrounding SAEs. We argue that even if SAEs may be less effective for \textit{acting on known concepts}, SAEs are especially powerful tools for \textit{discovering unknown concepts}. This distinction separates existing negative results from positive results, and suggests several classes of SAE applications. Specifically, we outline use cases for SAEs in (i) ML interpretability, explainability, fairness, auditing, and safety, and (ii) social and health sciences.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the 2024 enacted EU AI Act. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. Moreover, we argue that the AI Act is drafted in a manner that may unwillingly disrupt the scientific publication practices of the AI research community, with a focus on model and system release. We contribute the following: 1. We offer a high-level roadmap for AI researchers to evaluate whether they need to comply with the AI Act 2. We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to AI research. 3. We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability AI research and offer visual tool for researchers to navigate the AI Act's complex system or research exceptions 4. We establish a position the AI Act's research exceptions fail to account for current AI research conventions, as publishing AI research may void the research exceptions of the Act. 5. We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act.

Collaborative agentic AI is projected to transform entire industries by enabling AI-powered agents to autonomously perceive, plan, and act within digital environments. Yet, current solutions in this field are all built in isolation, and we are rapidly heading toward a landscape of fragmented, incompatible ecosystems. In this position paper, we argue that interoperability, achieved by the adoption of minimal standards, is essential to ensure open, secure, web-scale, and widely-adopted agentic ecosystems. To this end, we devise a minimal architectural foundation for collaborative agentic AI, named Web of Agents, which is composed of four building blocks: agent-to-agent messaging, interaction interoperability, state management, and agent discovery. Web of Agents adopts existing standards and reuses existing infrastructure where possible. With Web of Agents, we take the first but critical step toward interoperable agentic systems and offer a pragmatic path forward before ecosystem fragmentation becomes the norm.