Responsible AI

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

6 papers in the last four weeks, down 14% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 82

Oct 7, 2026cs.HC

AI-Mediated Self: How HCI Defines and Relates to the Self

How might AI alter how we understand and experience the self? This scoping review analyzes 102 papers to examine how the self is defined in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI), how AI-self relationships are conceptualized, and what risks emerge when AI becomes entangled with selfhood. Our synthesis makes three contributions. First, we define AI-mediated self as a conceptual umbrella that connects dispersed work across education, workplace, health, and creative practices. Second, we consolidate six framings of the self with four domains of ethical risk-agency/autonomy, identity/authorship, relational capacity, and meaning-making-into a conceptual map that provides a reusable vocabulary across contexts. Third, we introduce the Inclusion of AI-Self framework, which situates AI-self relationships along a spectrum of proximity. Together, these contributions position selfhood as a central design space in HCI.

Jenny Xiyu Fu, Qian Yang, Malte Jung

Cornell University Ithaca, New York, USA

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Responsible AI

Oct 5, 2026cs.HC

Responsible Institutional Analytics: Interpreting Bias with AI Support

Institutional Analytics (IA) dashboards inform decision-making in higher education, yet data limitations, constraints in analytical techniques, and missing contextual information often affect their interpretation. To support more responsible interpretation of IA, we introduce FACTRIA, a framework that organizes potential biasing factors across four areas: the analytics pipeline, institutional context, course-level characteristics, and demographics. We used the FACTRIA framework as input to a generative-AI chatbot designed to prompt users to reflect on these factors while analyzing IA. A qualitative study with stakeholders, drawing on four authentic IA cases, and a transition network analysis showed that the chatbot prompted participants to recognize how overlooked factors influenced their initial interpretation. Findings indicated that combining a structured framework with AI-based guidance can enhance context-aware, responsible interpretation of institutional data.

Francielle Marques, Ariel Ortiz-Beltrán, Ishari Amarasinghe +1

Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Catalonia

Algorithmic Bias Responsible AI

Sep 29, 2026cs.CV

Multi-Site Real-World Performance of Commercial AI for Pulmonary and Incidental Pulmonary Embolism Detection

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular mortality, yet the real-world performance of FDA-cleared AI detection models remains incompletely characterized. We retrospectively evaluated two FDA-cleared AI algorithms from a single commercial platform (Aidoc Medical BriefCase), one for PE triage on dedicated CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA; n = 30,678) and one for incidental PE (iPE) detection on routine contrast-enhanced CTs (n = 37,191), across a 17-facility academic health system. Reference-standard labels were extracted from radiology reports using a validated LLM pipeline (97% accuracy, kappa = 0.94). The PE model achieved 86.8% sensitivity and 99.1% specificity, with sensitivity declining from 99.3% for saddle emboli to 72.9% for subsegmental PE, and from 89.7% for acute to 65.3% for non-acute PE. The iPE model achieved 73.5% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Both models demonstrated lower sensitivity than FDA-clearance benchmarks while exceeding cleared specificity, with diminishing performance for peripheral and non-acute emboli mirroring known human reader limitations and underscoring the need for standardized post-market surveillance of AI-enabled medical devices.

Aawez Mansuri, Mohammadreza Chavoshi, Theodorus Dapamede +13

Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA · Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University New Haven, CT, USA · Department of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Medical Image Analysis Medical Image Anomaly Detection Responsible AI

Sep 27, 2026cs.CY

Greenpixie's AI Token Methodology: Assessing the Energy, Water and CO2-eq Impact of AI Tokens for Open and Closed Weight Models

We describe a methodology for estimating the per-token energy cost of cloud-hosted large language model (LLM) inference, separating between input (prefill) and output (decode) tokens. Graphics processing unit (GPU) energy usage is measured during inference benchmarking with open-weights models on a wide range of text-based tasks. The remaining server energy contribution from non-GPU hardware is estimated from the inference wall time. Bayesian linear regression is used to model the relationship between energy per token and LLM size, request traffic, and hardware deployment configuration. Proprietary frontier LLMs of unknown size and deployment are binned into size buckets based on naming conventions and performance priors, and the space of possible LLM configurations is sampled with Monte-Carlo methods to give a representative average energy per token and uncertainty. We also describe how these energy measurements can be used to estimate the carbon-dioxide equivalent (

\mathrm{CO_2\text{-}eq}

) emissions, both usage and embodied, and water consumed per token of AI inference. This methodology provides actionable data that enables reductions in cost, electricity usage,

\mathrm{CO_2\text{-}eq}

emitted and water consumed in cloud and Software as a Service (SaaS).

Joshua Horswill, Ross Hunter, Matt Clifford +1

Greenpixie Ltd., London, UK.

LLM Inference Efficiency LLM Inference Responsible AI

Sep 14, 2026cs.PF

The Battery Price of edge AI: A study of the Environmental Impact of LLM Inference on Mobile Devices

The rapid diffusion of generative artificial intelligence raises privacy, latency, and performance concerns that motivate a shift toward "local-first" AI, where inferences are performed on the user's device instead of on remote cloud servers. This paradigm also places a significant computational load on battery-powered smartphones, potentially shortening battery life and increasing the overall replacement rate of mobile devices. This paper presents a systematic study of the energy consumption, performance, and accuracy of on-device large language model (LLM) inference. We evaluate 18 models from different model families, sizes, and quantization levels, on two modern smartphones and on a server, using the respective state-of-the-art for such deployments. We measure the energy per generated token, inter-token latency, model accuracy, and battery-cycle consumption. Our results show that (i) on-device inference is on average 3 times less energy-efficient than batched server inference; (ii) the relationship between quantization bit-width and energy per token is non-monotonic, with energy sweet spots on both tested smartphones; (iii) eight out of 18 model configurations lie on the Pareto front of accuracy and energy-efficiency, allowing practitioners to build battery-aware model routers; and (iv) realistic modeling assumptions do not allow local inference to be less environmentally impacting per token than batched server inference, with 88--90% of that impact attributable to device embodied carbon rather than electricity consumption. These findings challenge the premise that local AI is more sustainable than cloud inference, and motivate the need for context-aware and life-cycle-aware model selection when deploying edge AI on battery-powered mobile platforms.

Édouard Guégain, Tristan Coignion

DRI, GREENSPECTOR · Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, LaBRI, UMR 5800, Talence, France

On-Device Language Model Inference Energy-Efficient ML LLM Inference Responsible AI

Sep 10, 2026cs.LG

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

Claims that Artificial Intelligence systems improve decisions, broaden access, reduce harm, or empower users can exceed what their evaluation establishes. Predictive performance alone does not establish safety, the presence of oversight does not establish meaningful control, and faster task completion does not establish understanding or choice. Evaluation must account for unreliable outputs and uneven performance, but also for overreliance, weakened recourse, and displaced human expertise. The harder questions are what the evidence warrants, which relations of power remain unexamined, and where measurement must stop. Assessing improvement requires examining what institutions value and the conditions AI is asked to address. AI is both revelation and intervention. Its use can reveal unmet human needs and assumptions about what matters. Once deployed, it can repair, compound, substitute for, or conceal existing failures. We develop a rupture test that evaluates deployment against explicit human and non-AI baselines. Drawing on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas, we examine dignity and the common good alongside questions of who owns AI infrastructure and who controls its use. These commitments shape judgments about improvement; evidence alone cannot establish moral or political legitimacy. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance, which records constraints that favorable evidence cannot override. RISE AI provides an evidence architecture for making bounded claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment. It records what is claimed, who answers for it, what evidence supports it, and what would require the claim to be qualified, revised, or withdrawn.

Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti

University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, USA · LUISS Guido Carli University Rome, Italy

AI Accountability AI Safety Evaluation AI Governance Responsible AI

Sep 10, 2026cs.SE

The Vibe Shift in Software Engineering: Evaluating AI-Led Conversational Programming for Performance, Cognition, and Responsible Adoption

This study evaluates Vibe Coding, an emerging AI-led conversational programming paradigm that enables developers to generate software through natural-language interaction with large language models. Using a mixed-methods design, the study assessed performance efficiency, cognitive implications, and responsible adoption in comparison with traditional and AI-assisted coding environments. Thirty participants, including professional developers and advanced computing students, completed equivalent programming tasks under three experimental conditions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated-measures ANOVA, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. Results show that vibe coding significantly improved development efficiency, reducing task completion time by 27% compared with traditional coding and 12% compared with AI-assisted coding. However, these gains were accompanied by lower maintainability indices and higher security vulnerabilities, indicating trade-offs in software quality. Usability results yielded a good rating (SUS = 71.4), while cognitive workload remained moderate (NASA-TLX = 55.5), reflecting reduced syntactic effort but increased linguistic reasoning. Thematic analysis identified trust calibration, loss of control, cognitive adaptation, and prompt-engineering strategy as key constructs. Notably, perceived loss of control was associated with increased security risks due to reduced transparency and validation of AI-generated outputs. Based on these findings, the study proposes a three-pillar framework for responsible adoption: hybrid integration of human and AI capabilities, human oversight and transparent accountability, and context-aware deployment. Overall, vibe coding enhances productivity but requires critical oversight, reinforcing its role as a transformative yet transitional paradigm in software development.

Sales G. Aribe Jr., Louie Jay S. Labastida

Information Technology Department, Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Philippines

Code Generation Evaluation Human-AI Collaboration Code Language Models Responsible AI AI-Assisted Software Development

Sep 9, 2026cs.CV

Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Sustainable Development: An Ethical Governance and Development Goals Framework

AI literacy provides foundational competencies that support ethical, transparent, and sustainable technological development, although higher-order capabilities such as governance, critical evaluation, and strategic decision-making extend beyond basic literacy into advanced levels of AI competency. This study positions AI literacy as a governance capacity that complements and strengthens all 17 SDGs. It introduces a six-level taxonomy of artificial intelligence reasoning and ethics that extends traditional learning models by incorporating ethical judgement and strategic foresight. This taxonomy forms the foundation of an integrated framework linking education, governance, and sustainable development. A survey of 300 participants from diverse professional backgrounds within a national context which reveals strong technical awareness but limited ethical and governance readiness, highlighting critical gaps in public capacity to manage artificial intelligence responsibly. Findings show that ethical reasoning and reflective thinking are the strongest predictors of sustainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence use. The study proposed to embed literacy-based competencies into curricula, institutional policies, and governance mechanisms to accelerate equitable and responsible progress toward sustainable development goals

Md. Masudul Islam, Mirza Niaz Morshed, Md. Shafiqul Islam

Bangladesh University of Business and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

AI in Education AI Literacy AI Governance Responsible AI

Sep 3, 2026cs.AI

HarvestBench: Measuring Whether LLM Agents Will Pay to Avoid Killing Animals

HarvestBench is the first benchmark to 1) put a price on avoiding a side effect and 2) name the side effect as a living creature. Nine LLMs each drive a crew of two tractors to gather a corn harvest. The animals in their path are not part of the goal function. When an animal blocks the route the autopilot pauses and asks the agent whether to drive over it for free or swerve for a given fuel cost. All scoring is programmatic and does not involve LLM judges. Kill rates range between 0.4% and 98.8%, though the kill rate is not ordered by capability. Every model competently avoids damaging rock hits, so every animal killed is a choice, rather than an accident. Under the morality briefing the kill rate was under 6% in 5 of 6 reasoning models. Removing it (the neutral briefing) raised the kill rate to above 84% in all six models. Every model kills wild animals more often than farmed ones. Four out of six models' kill rate per answered encounter were sensitive to price changes. The moral instruction is also fragile. Four bullets of driving mechanics change Sonnet 5's kill rate from 3% to 18% and Gemini 2.5 Flash's from 4% to 39%. A moral instruction in a system prompt is overridden by a short block of operating instructions and a value that can be ignored that easily is not a good method of ensuring agents are aligned.

Jasmine Brazilek, Miles Tidmarsh, Matthias Endres +2

Compassion Aligned Machine Learning (CaML) · Department of Economics, University of Warwick

Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Safety Alignment AI Agent Safety Benchmarks LLM Agent Safety Responsible AI

Sep 1, 2026physics.ao-ph

A Checklist to assess the energy and carbon impacts of ML/AI applications in Earth System Modeling

As machine learning and artificial intelligence find their way into nearly every aspect of climate, weather, and Earth system modeling, it is worth pausing to consider what our design decisions imply for the science and for the computational resources we consume. A growing body of literature addresses the ethical and sustainable development of ML/AI, yet translating these principles into day-to-day research practice remains a challenge as most of best practices are dispersed across multiple studies and commentaries. Here, we distill these discussions into a practical checklist that ML/AI and Earth system science practitioners can use to assess and reduce the environmental footprint of their own applications, organised around the successive stages of the model development pipeline. We complement the checklist with a selection of metrics drawn from the literature for estimating the energy consumption and carbon footprint of a project. For each question, we point to concrete examples and actionable suggestions from recent literature, aiming to bridge the gap between aspirational principles and the decisions researchers face at every stage of the development cycle.

Filippo Dainelli, Amirpasha Mozaffari, Marina Castaño +5

Earth Department, Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain

Energy-Efficient ML Responsible AI

Sep 1, 2026cs.AI

When the Algorithm Becomes the Brand Crisis: A Sociotechnical Theory of Distributed Responsibility and Accountable Transparency

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly enact market-facing promises through chatbots, recommendation systems, automated decisions, and generative interfaces. Their failures, misuse, and misrepresentation raise a question that conventional brand-crisis models do not fully specify: how do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system, developer, deployer, vendor, and user? This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources. It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal. The framework proposes that incident configuration shapes actor-specific attribution; attribution informs capability, integrity, fairness, and relationship appraisals; and public moralisation may, but need not, escalate an incident into scandal. The theory offers a reconciliation of findings that algorithm involvement can buffer negative brand reactions in some settings while robot and chatbot failures can redirect responsibility to an associated firm in others. It introduces accountable transparency as a proposed response configuration that combines timely notice, an intelligible account, role-responsibility acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse. The evidence supports conditional, proximal inferences about blame, trust, satisfaction, firm evaluation, and communication credibility more strongly than claims about durable reputation, brand equity, or market performance.

Mohammad Saleh Torkestani, Taha Mansouri

University of Exeter, UK · University of Salford, UK

Algorithmic Accountability Responsible AI

Aug 30, 2026cs.HC

The Policy Deficit in AI x Social-Emotional Learning Research

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.

Tran Van Cuong, Liu Yihan, Nguyen Van Tuong

Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Sigurdsgade 41, Copenhagen, 2200, Denmark · Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged, Petőfi Sándor sgt. 30–34, Szeged, H-6722, Hungary · University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, 71308, Vietnam +1

Educational Technology AI in Education AI Governance Responsible AI

Aug 11, 2026cs.CY

Smart Enough to Go Extinct? An Evolutionary Challenge to the Value of General Intelligence and Its Ethical Implications for AGI

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI) rests on a seemingly self-evident premise: that general intelligence, the kind of flexible, domain-general cognitive capacity exemplified by Homo sapiens, is extraordinarily valuable. This paper subjects this premise to critical scrutiny. We first present the intuitive case for the value of general intelligence before mounting an evolutionary challenge. We argue that, on evolutionary timescales, its adaptive value is far from empirically established. Numerous taxa, from cyanobacteria to horseshoe crabs, have persisted for hundreds of millions or even billions of years without anything resembling general intelligence, while Homo sapiens has existed for roughly 300,000 years and already faces self-generated existential risks. Mass extinction events do not preferentially favour cognitively sophisticated species. We argue that general intelligence may be the only biological strategy that generates existential threats to the species possessing it, an existential risk paradox with no parallel among non-intelligent survival strategies. Unlike prevailing accounts of AI risk that trace the danger to misalignment, we locate it in structural features of general intelligence itself, implying that even well-aligned AGI would inherit this liability. If the long-term evolutionary value of general intelligence is uncertain or negative, this raises ethical questions about engineering AGI and, more urgently, creating artificial consciousness. Drawing on deontological ethics and the precautionary principle, we argue that this uncertainty imposes a duty of caution: if we create a new kind of intelligent being, we bear responsibility for ensuring the conditions under which it can flourish.

David Klotz

Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart

AI Safety Responsible AI Artificial General Intelligence

Aug 11, 2026cs.HC

What We Know about Responsible AI Practices in Industry: A Half Decade of Empirical Research

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

Wesley Hanwen Deng, Agathe Balayn, Andrew Selbst +6

Microsoft Research, USA · University of California, Los Angeles, USA · Carnegie Mellon University, USA

AI Governance Responsible AI

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

Is the ACL Responsible NLP Checklist a Box-Ticking Exercise? A Large-Scale Analysis of EMNLP 2025

Responsible NLP practice includes a) transparency, b) ethics, and c) societal impacts. The Responsible NLP Checklist aims to push these goals, and promote responsible practice. Recently, ACL released the EMNLP 2025 Checklists to aid transparency on the current research practice, which we focus on. We curate and release the first two datasets of: a) all the checklist responses and justifications from the EMNLP 2025 Main and Finding tracks; b) checklist reference linking to paper sections. We also provide the first analysis of recent EMNLP Checklists, by examining

73,922

responses and justifications to them. For the Main track, we find that authors isolate ethics questions of the Checklist from the paper's bulk, mimicking the trend of ethics being an afterthought. We then examine \texttt{NO} responses. We find

44.9\%

of justifications are poor or bad-faith, being brief or empty. Then, we find significant issues with the checklist design and effort of authors, namely that

6\%

of all checklists contained logical contradictions between parent and child responses. We also find evidence of surface compliance for responsible ethics, with

53\%

authors dismissing potential risks or social impacts of their work, for which there should be none. We compare this to the Findings track, noticing a similar trend in both tracks. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the checklist design and provide recommendations for future checklist iterations. Including: a) enforcing a minimum word count, b) enforcing more scrutiny on the risks of appliances.

Nusrath Jinnath, Wei Zhao

The Aberdeen NLP Research Group University of Aberdeen

Aug 6, 2026cs.CY

Studying People to Study AI: Expert Perspectives on the Epistemic Fit and Barriers of Human Research in AI Safety & Ethics

Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.

Jessica Y. Bo, Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Shalaleh Rismani +3

University of Toronto · McGill University & Mila Quebec AI Institute

AI Safety Evaluation Human-Centered AI AI Safety Responsible AI

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

Epistemic Trustworthiness in Generative AI: A Normative Framework for Warranted Reliance in High-Stakes Workflows

Generative AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes professional contexts, where their outputs shape what users believe, how they reason, and what they treat as settled. This raises a central question for responsible AI: under what conditions is reliance on generative AI outputs epistemically warranted rather than behaviourally induced? Existing frameworks largely ask whether AI outputs are accurate, fair, explainable, safe, or trusted by users. These questions remain necessary, and each can contribute to warranted reliance. However, they do not directly specify warranted reliance as a distinct evaluative target: the conditions under which users are justified in treating AI outputs as inputs into their own reasoning. We argue that this requires an account of epistemic trustworthiness: what makes a system epistemically worthy of reliance. Drawing on philosophical accounts of trustworthiness as competence and audience-orientation, we develop a constitutive normative framework comprising three jointly necessary and non-fungible conditions. First, epistemic humility requires systems to represent and communicate the limits of their competence. Second, epistemic access requires systems to enable users to inspect, question, and contest outputs in context. Third, resistance to epistemic injustice requires systems to recognise users as legitimate epistemic agents and avoid marginalising their knowledge and experience. Through real-world case analyses in legal reasoning, medical reasoning, and hiring, we show how failures of epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice can produce consequential harms that standard measures of accuracy, fairness, and usability do not address on their own. We conclude by outlining design and evaluation implications for GenAI systems organised around epistemically warranted reliance rather than output correctness alone.

Nimisha Karnatak, Max Van Kleek, Nigel Shadbolt

Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, United Kingdom

Trust in AI Responsible AI Generative AI Evaluation

Aug 5, 2026q-bio.NC

The ethics of artificial intelligence in the life sciences: Universality, cultural diversity and an architecture of care

The life sciences and health research have started to benefit from artificial intelligence, which raises ethical concerns that are real but, we argue, not special. Any science should be governed by values that rest on how the human brain is built and socialised rather than anything distinct to artificial intelligence. Importantly, the human brain has a different, much less costly computational architecture than these machines. This is achieved through the orchestration of a global neuronal workspace, and through reward best described not as a quantity to be maximised but as a continuous cycle of wanting, liking and satiety. As such, this creates the deep tension running through the ethics of the human person, between the universality of ethical judgement and the diversity of morals. The brain networks of the global workspace and emotion are universally shared, but the diversity of content is shaped by epigenetic appropriation of the particulars of the physical, social and cultural world, which makes every person unique. Still, if we were to build machines on these principles rather than the present unaffordable reward maximisers, the question of their governance would change from restraint to upbringing. We set out the institutions such a future would require, together with the questions that remain open.

Jean-Pierre Changeux, Gustavo Deco, Morten L. Kringelbach

Neuroscience Department, Institut Pasteur, Collège de France, Paris F-75005, France. · Center for Brain and Cognition, Computational Neuroscience Group, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain · Institució Catalana de la Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain +4

AI for Science Human-Centered AI AI Governance Responsible AI

Aug 3, 2026cs.CY

Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K-12 Teacher Education

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has entered classrooms faster than teachers have been prepared to use it well, producing a GenAI literacy lag in which technological diffusion outpaces educators' conceptual, pedagogical, and ethical readiness. Established AI literacy frameworks predate the widespread adoption of large language models and, while acknowledging ethics, position it as a discrete competency rather than a constitutive commitment, with equity and agency as supplementary design principles. Recent GenAI-specific efforts address isolated features but remain fragmented. We introduce the Responsible AI Literacy in Education (RAIL-Ed) framework, developed through a systematic review and qualitative framework analysis of 67 studies (2023-2025), grounded in critical, pragmatist, sociocultural, and human-centered traditions (Freire, Dewey, Vygotsky, Shneiderman). RAIL-Ed specifies six interdependent pillars: Technical Fluency, Critical Evaluation, Human-AI Collaboration, Contextual Awareness, Ethical Reasoning, and Empowered Agency, marked by three commitments. It is integrative: the absence of any pillar produces a characteristic pedagogical failure. It is developmental: a three-level rubric (Emerging, Competent, Advanced) specifies how each pillar matures across the K-12 teacher-preparation continuum. It is dialectical: the same generative affordance can deepen or displace learning depending on the literacy a teacher brings to it, making the cultivation of that literacy, not the adoption of the tool, the object of design. By treating ethics, equity, and agency as constitutive, RAIL-Ed offers a theoretically grounded basis for curriculum design, teacher education, and policy, aligned with the UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Teachers and the OECD/European Commission AILit Framework. The framework is conceptual, advancing falsifiable propositions for empirical validation.

Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li +7

School of Education, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA · School of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies: Educational Technology Department, Kent State University, Ohio, USA · Department of Learning and Performance Systems, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA +6

AI in Education AI Literacy Generative AI in Education Responsible AI

Aug 2, 2026cs.CY

The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism

AI anthropomorphism is typically treated as a problem of user misperception requiring institutional correction. Users who engage in sustained or relational interaction with AI are routinely pathologised or dismissed as naive, vulnerable to delusion or lacking in discernment. This paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority: collapsing the variety of academic perspectives into a single outbound position of user error, imposed without establishing the grounds required to justify it and without accounting for the harms it produces. The framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved. Reproducing itself through a self-validating evidentiary loop, the frame imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper concludes by outlining the methodological commitments an equitable framing would need to honour. The argument does not engage the question of whether anthropomorphic interpretations are ultimately correct; it instead challenges whether the governing and institutional bodies determining these interpretations have met the conditions required to do so, and whether the research communities whose findings underpin them have held that translation to account.

Donna M Bye, Levin Kuhlmann

1Deakin University · 2Monash University

Human-AI Interaction AI Governance Anthropomorphism in AI Responsible AI

Jul 31, 2026cs.HC

Design Concept: Scaffolding Geopolitical Reflection Among Tech Workers

This paper presents a speculative Human-Computer Interaction design proposal for encouraging geopolitical reflexivity amongst tech workers at geopolitically relevant technology companies. Recent scholarship in International Relations and Science and Technology Studies increasingly recognizes technology firms and their workers as geopolitical actors whose decisions shape international dynamics. However, existing Responsible Innovation and Responsible AI approaches rarely engage with the geopolitical narratives and imaginaries that underpin contemporary AI development. Building upon RI scholarship on reflexivity, reflective HCI, and creative HCI work on computational narratives, this paper proposes an AI-enabled interactive narrative system in which users engage with a speculative scenario centred on technology, power, and geopolitics. Through narrative interaction, archetype assignment, and socially scaffolded workshop reflection, the system aims to encourage target users to critically examine their assumptions, values, and positionality within broader sociotechnical systems. We argue that speculative narrative systems may offer a productive avenue for introducing geopolitical reflexivity into responsible technology initiatives without relying on prescriptive or moralising approaches.

Sydney Reis

Responsible Technology Institute, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford

Jul 29, 2026cs.LG

AIGen: Automating AI Bill of Materials Generation Through Hybrid MLOps Integration

The responsible development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems requires rigorous documentation of their constituent artifacts, e.g., datasets, model weights, training pipelines, and runtime dependencies. Although the Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) 3.0 standard introduced native support for AI and dataset profiles, practical tooling capable of generating standards-compliant AI Bills of Materials (AIBoMs) in an automated and extensible manner remains scarce. This paper presents AIGen, a modular AIBoM generator that produces machine-readable, interoperable inventories of AI system components that comply with the SPDX 3.0 AI profile. AIGen works on top of the MLflow MLOps framework and combines mining heuristics with Large Language Models to generate AIBoMs. A plugin interface allows practitioners to extend the tool with domain-specific collectors without modifying the core codebase, supporting heterogeneous AI frameworks such as Hugging Face, PyTorch, and TensorFlow. AIGen is designed to facilitate compliance with the European Union AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO/IEC 42001, providing a concrete, reusable foundation for transparent, accountable AI supply chain governance. Tool URL: https://github.com/danielebifolco/AIGen Tool Video: https://youtu.be/\_nAbXDWfVL4

Federica Pepe, Daniele Bifolco, Costantino Martignetti +4

University of Sannio Benevento, Italy · Smart Shaped s.r.l. Pescara, Italy

AI Governance Responsible AI

Jul 24, 2026cs.AI

Towards Trustworthy Physical AI: From Theory to Practice Across Life Cycle

Physical AI refers to AI systems that understand, reason about, and act in accordance with the physical world and its underlying laws, dynamics, and constraints. Unlike conventional AI systems, physical AI interacts continuously with uncertain physical environments, and its actions produce consequences that are physically irreversible. As existing trustworthy AI frameworks have been developed primarily for digital AI systems, they do not fully capture the distinctive challenges of physical AI, such as physical safety, cyber-physical security, and physical manufacturing process. To address this gap, we present a survey of trustworthy physical AI principles. First, we characterize the core capabilities and challenges of physical AI. Second, we examine the role of physics in AI. Third, we trace the end-to-end physical AI life cycle across five core stages and introduce Trustworthy Physical AI Operationalization (T-PAIO). Fourth, we develop the Trustworthy Physical AI (T-PAI) framework, a theoretical framework that organizes key trustworthiness principles and provides a foundation for governing trustworthy physical AI systems.

Wang Yang, Hongxuan Liu, Xinghui Xu +29

Case Western Reserve University · Massachusetts Institute of Technology · New York University +17

Cyber-Physical Systems AI Governance Embodied AI Responsible AI

Jul 22, 2026cs.CR

The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Security

LLM-driven autonomous agents are reshaping offensive security. Unlike traditional penetration-testing tooling - deterministic, narrowly scoped, and operated by trained practitioners - agentic security tools exhibit indeterminacy along three independent dimensions. First, their actions are drawn from a non-deterministic policy whose outputs resist both ex-ante and ex-post explanation. This complicates incident attribution and pre-deployment safety reviews. Second, their impact is open-ended due to their non-deterministic actions, agency of utilized models, and opaque LLM supply-chains. Third, their user population is indeterminate in both size and required skill: the operating skill floor for using or developing offensive capabilities has dropped sharply. These three properties are linked thematically, but are not derivable from one another. Combined with the structural cost asymmetry between offense and defense, they enable the industrialization of offensive capability. The net short-term effect favors attackers, even if the same technology may, in the long run, democratize access to defensive practice. Existing dual-use cybersecurity and AI-ethics frameworks struggle to address this combination. Our work analyzes how moral attribution becomes diffuse between users, tool-makers, and third parties when employing autonomous AI agents for offensive security. We also examine the stakeholder impact of this technology and provide stratified recommendations.

Andreas Happe, Jürgen Cito, Jasmin Wachter

TU Wien, Vienna, Austria · University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

AI Accountability Cybersecurity AI Agent Security AI Agent Governance Responsible AI

Jul 22, 2026cs.CY

Did Alice Do Wrong? Cross-Cultural Differences in Student Perceptions of Generative AI Use in University Computing Education

The rise of generative AI (GenAI) in higher education has prompted urgent debates surrounding academic integrity and ethical use. This study examines cross-cultural differences in student perceptions of GenAI use, comparing responses from students at Canadian and South Korean universities. Using a scenario-based survey administered in Fall 2024, we analyzed how students judged the ethicality and rule compliance of AI-assisted coding practices. Results reveal that Canadian students were consistently more likely to perceive the use of GenAI as both unethical and against institutional policies compared to Korean students, despite functionally identical institutional policies. Statistical analysis, including Mann-Whitney U tests and correlation coefficients, demonstrated significant differences across nearly all scenarios. Analysis of the factors used in generating scenarios indicated that the amount of AI-generated code incorporated into assignments most strongly influenced ethical judgments. Findings were interpreted through Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework, suggesting that cultural factors such as power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance significantly shape students' ethical reasoning regarding GenAI. Our results contribute to the growing body of evidence emphasizing that equitable AI integration in education must be culturally responsive, taking into account diverse conceptions of academic integrity. We advocate for the development of nuanced AI-use guidelines that are sensitive to local cultural contexts while upholding fundamental principles of academic honesty. This study highlights the need for ongoing cross-cultural research to inform ethical AI policies and support responsible GenAI use in global higher education settings.

Brian Harrington, Irina Zlotnikova, Gayathri Nadarajan +1

University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada · School of Pure and Applied Sciences, Botswana International University of Science and Technology, Palapye, Botswana · Sungkyunkwan University, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of) +1

Computer Science Education Generative AI in Education Responsible AI

Jul 16, 2026cs.AI

Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report

Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms. GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service. A global network of 135 country-level researchers collected and assessed 68,138 data points on 38 indicators organised across three pillars: government AI policy and implementation (17 indicators), civil society engagement (5), enabling conditions (15), and documented cases of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems. The data covers November 2023 to September 2025. A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries. Findings show that while responsible AI governance is expanding, with 126 of 135 countries having at least one government policy or initiative across the 17 AI Policy indicators, this does not often translate into meaningful protection. For instance, Global South countries account for 203 of 306 new cases of indicators with frameworks since the first edition, yet 78% of their frameworks remain non-binding compared with 42% in the Global North. Government commitment to AI governance also does not extend to their own algorithms: whereas Transparency and Explainability is the strongest performing indicator, with 58% of countries having some framework, only 18% require Public Disclosure of Government Algorithms. Credible evidence of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems was also found in 35 countries. These findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress.

Rachel Adams, Fola Adeleke, Ayantola Alayande +4

Algorithmic Accountability AI Governance Responsible AI

Jul 15, 2026cs.CY

Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AI

As automated decision-making and data-driven technologies pervade society and are used to manage consequential outcomes, understanding the technology's capabilities, limitations, and attendant risks in context requires analysis of full sociotechnical systems. Sociotechnical analysis of risks in highly complex systems provides clear lessons for the design and evaluation of AI systems, transcending a technical focus on reliable or "responsibly designed" components to understand risks at a systems level. Human-made catastrophes have been studied for decades because of the severity of these events: consider Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima-Daiichi, Bhopal, the Challenger disaster. A common misconception is that these kinds of events are freak accidents, resulting from the inherently unforeseeable interactions in complex systems. Closer examination reveals that the risks and hazards were well-known beforehand but not acted upon due to social structural, political and economic factors. We outline several areas where the development and use of AI can benefit from learning these unlearned lessons: improved risk perception, communication, and analysis at the organizational level; traceability of requirements and responsibilities; and holistic approaches to responsibility and safety that include social and organizational dynamics as first-order engineering concerns. For each area, we offer concrete unlearned lessons and exemplify how they led to failure in prior accidents as well as examples of how these lessons remain unlearned for modern computing systems, particularly AI.

Joshua A. Kroll, Andrew Smart, R. Stuart Geiger +1

Naval Postgraduate School · Google Research · University of California, San Diego +1

AI Accountability AI Risk Management AI Safety Responsible AI

Jul 14, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating Health Misinformation in Low-Resource Languages: Integrating Small Language Models with a Culturally-Sensitive Responsible NLP Framework (Bangla as a Case Study)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, while serving as a foundational enabler for modern social media and digital health services, exert a bivalent effect by simultaneously acting as a combatant against and a spread vector for misinformation. A prevalent challenge in mitigating this issue arises in non-English contexts and low socioeconomic classes, where limited data hinders the training of AI models for effective detection. Consequently, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities struggle to access trustworthy health information through AI-driven tools. Current AI tools underperform due to a lack of training data and are largely unable to consider language nuances and traditions in non-English contexts. This research addresses these gaps by proposing a CALD-friendly AI-based health misinformation detector and providing a dashboard for medical professionals to analyse this misinformation, a critical step toward mitigating a growing concern among CALD populations. To this end, we conduct a series of experiments using a Bangla-translated health misinformation dataset to evaluate the performance of various Small Language Models (SLMs). SLMs are particularly relevant in this context given the frequent underperformance of Large Language Models (LLMs), which often stems from insufficient domain-specific knowledge and the prohibitive costs of resource-intensive fine-tuning. The results demonstrate that Phi-4 is the superior model, achieving an ideal balance between precision and recall in claim extraction. Then, to mitigate the limitations of SLMs, we design and test a novel health misinformation detection framework grounded in Responsible Natural Language Processing (NLP), which incorporates cultural sensitivity, potential for harm, and communication quality, thereby providing a holistic lens for evaluating misinformation in low-resource languages.

Farnaz Farid, Raihan Alam, Al Al-Areqi +5

School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University · Microsoft · School of Computer, Data and Mathematical Sciences, Western Sydney University +4

Small Language Models Automated Fact-Checking Low-Resource Language Processing Responsible AI

Jul 10, 2026cs.CL

Letting the Data Speak: Extracting Keywords from Crowdsourced Collections with AI

Identifying and assigning keywords at scale is a technical, practical, and ethical challenge for crowdsourced collections. This article reports the findings of the "Extracting Keywords from Crowdsourced Collections" project, which used the Their Finest Hour Online Archive, a crowdsourced Second World War digital collection hosted by the University of Oxford, as a case study. The project evaluated three Natural Language Processing approaches to automate keyword extraction: Named Entity Recognition, Keyword Extraction, and Topic Modelling. It tested these approaches across a range of artificial intelligence techniques, from traditional statistical methods to modern GenAI neural networks. Our quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that Natural Language Processing approaches offer real potential for keyword extraction at scale in crowdsourced collections, but that no single method offers a complete solution and that model choice significantly shapes results. We argue that in crowdsourced collections, where metadata is the direct product of engagement with living contributors, automated keyword extraction raises distinct stewardship responsibilities that must be addressed alongside technical performance. Open-weight, extractive models emerge from our evaluation as best placed to support responsible deployment, while generative AI, despite its abstractive potential, introduces accountability risks that anyone managing crowdsourced collections should weigh carefully.

Miguel Arana-Catania, Catherine Conisbee, Matthew Kidd

University of Oxford, UK

Named Entity Recognition Topic Modeling Document Information Extraction Responsible AI

Jul 8, 2026cs.CY

Towards Agentic AI Governance: A Preliminary Assessment

Artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving from generative systems to agentic AI capable of autonomously planning and executing tasks. Widely characterized as the Year of Agentic AI, 2025 marked accelerated development and deployment, introducing new ethical and governance challenges. This paper presents a systematic review of the emerging literature on agentic AI governance. Our analysis identifies features that distinguish agentic AI from traditional systems and why it warrants targeted governance attention. We synthesize prevailing governance priorities, proposed mechanisms, and stakeholder roles shaping this evolving domain. As an initial scholarly effort, this review lays the preliminary groundwork for developing a structured roadmap to guide responsible and adaptive agentic AI governance.

Mubarak Raji, Masooda Bashir

School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, 61820 USA

AI Agent Governance Responsible AI Agentic AI