Social Norms

Correctly answering a question grounded in normative documents often depends on information outside any single passage: whether the retrieved document is the version currently in force; whether it applies to the jurisdiction, subject (such as an institution or applicant), and date at issue; and whether each normative claim can be traced to its supporting source text. Hosted retrieval services have substantially lowered the engineering cost of building an initial system over such corpora, making "upload the documents and ask" a common default. We evaluate this default on approximately 73,000 candidate normative documents supplied to a production deployment. The evaluation uses a stratified sample of 200 questions from our published benchmark, with a gold source document for every question; the released sampling rule reads no system outputs or scores. We compare the hosted service with a governed system that resolves version and scope through explicit rules before generation. The governed system scored 97.7 overall, while the hosted service scored 88.1, a gap of 9.6 points computed from unrounded means. The question set, the answer text evaluated for both systems, the scores, and the scripts used to reproduce the reported benchmark statistics are public. The governed configuration has operated as a commercial product since January 2026 and serves 1,126 registered users; named customer organizations include Zhipu AI and Lecheng Health. By mid-April 2026, it had reached roughly 100,000 calls per workday.

Human values are deep motivational orientations that shape human behaviors. In e-commerce, they reveal the stable drivers behind users' purchase decisions. Compared with short-term interests, consumer values better explain how users evaluate products before purchase. However, consumer values are often implicit in complex and fragmented behavioral trajectories, leaving value measurement from e-commerce behaviors largely underexplored. To this end, we propose the Behavior-to-Value (B2V) task, which aims to identify consumer values from e-commerce behavioral trajectories. Centered on this task, we first construct the E-commerce Consumption Value Taxonomy (ECVT) and introduce B2V-Bench, the first B2V dataset and benchmark, based on anonymized Taobao behavioral logs. B2V-Bench consists of real-world purchase decision episodes, covering 25 types of purchase behaviors, along with corresponding consumer value orientations manifested in each episode. To improve consumer value measurement accuracy, we further present B2V-Verifier, a behavior-to-value measurement model based on Value Verification Tuning, which learns to assess whether behaviors provide sufficient evidence for each value inference. Experiments show that B2V-Verifier outperforms strong LLM baselines, improving multi-label classification by 34%. The dataset and code will be publicly released upon acceptance.

Powerful technologies labeled ``AI''-without sufficient epistemic caution-are already reshaping political and private life, bringing both new dangers and new opportunities for citizen participation. These range from electoral and legislative engagement to the most ambitious form: political co-creation through citizens' assemblies. Large Language Models (LLMs) could support such processes through moderation, translation, facilitation, summarization, and writing assistance. But this potential remains largely unrealized. The Democratic Commons project takes a fundamentally interdisciplinary approach-from philosophy to computer science-to evaluate LLMs against five proposed democratic principles. At its core, the project is driven by the question of political bias: under what conditions can LLMs be used democratically within forms of citizen participation that are them- selves still largely experimental? Addressing these socio-technical questions requires grounding in political theory and, more broadly, in philosophy-disciplines that provide the normative frameworks without which the democratic evaluation of AI systems cannot be mean- ingfully conducted.

As robotic systems grow more general, legal norms are needed to integrate them into society. This paper extends the isomorphism problem of aligning legal source texts with their encodings, and measures two key challenges to robot normative control: (1) the grounding isomorphism gap, where perception error grounds false atoms for legal reasoning, and (2) the ontological isomorphism gap, where one legal conclusion admits many faithful translations into planning constraints. The paper introduces a legal planning stack that employs Defeasible Deontic Logic (DDL) to constrain a motion planner. The stack leverages learned world models to plan and to provide legal context, enabling ex ante governance that intervenes before an illegal action is executed. It was deployed on a simulated robot arm pushing a cube across a 3x3 grid. The findings were (1) the legislated agent abided substantially more often than the non-legislated one, and modeling perception uncertainty lifted abidance even further, (2) the legal reasoning ran efficiently at runtime and its verdicts were auditable, and (3) the stack adapted to exogenous signals and endogenous rule changes. Both gaps were measured: (4) world model and probe error corrupted the factual input for the DDL reasoner, and (5) a single law admitted several faithful metric interpretations yielding drastically different abidance. Thus, ex ante legislation functions as intended, and closing these gaps with a standardized mapping from the law to runtime constraints and improved fact grounding from perception will yield robust laws that align robot behavior with society's norms. Project page: https://dylanwaldner-cail.github.io/Legislated-Planner/.

In recent years, artificial intelligence has made extraordinary progress thanks to large-scale models capable of generalization and the generation of complex outputs. However, transferring this potential into embodied agents reveals a significant limitation: the most advanced systems rely on pre-existing datasets and human feedback strategies that are powerful but insufficient in dynamic or unknown contexts. To adapt, an agent must acquire knowledge through direct interaction with its environment. One strategy to address this challenge involves introducing higher-level mechanisms, such as intrinsic motivations, which leverage curiosity and competence, to guide exploration and learning in complex environments. While this flexibility expands autonomy, it complicates the task of ensuring agents remain aligned with human goals. Alignment, already a challenge for artificial systems in general, becomes even more complex in unstructured and dynamic contexts where predefined rules prove insufficient. To be effective and adaptable, norms must be rooted in experience through an epistemological process that starting from simple, situated principles allows for the gradual construction of more complex rules through experience, autonomous learning, and cooperation with other moral agents. Similarly to children learning social norms by exploring their environment and participating in collective practices, artificial agents must also be educated toward alignment. Following Dennett, the status of a moral agent is not innate but is attributed gradually based on the ability to responsibly manage increasing degrees of freedom. From this perspective, the regulatory sandboxes can be viewed as pedagogical environments for AI: dynamic spaces where alignment develops as a formative process, progressively shaping autonomous behaviors through interaction and cooperation in scenarios of increasing complexity.

In this paper, we develop warrant theory as a philosophical discipline concerned with the inferential legitimacy of propositions within logical analysis. Warrant theory reconceptualises logic as a normative framework governing the conditions under which propositions may be introduced, accepted, rejected, and inferentially employed. Warrant is understood as inferential entitlement and is distinguished from truth, belief, and other psychological attitudes, while its relation to inferential use and meaning is examined. Warrant-theoretic analysis is then developed as a systematic method for investigating how propositions acquire inferential standing, how that standing develops, and how inferential positions interact through relations of dependence, compatibility, incompatibility, and exclusion. Acceptance and rejection provide the bilateral vocabulary for representing positive and negative inferential positions and the consequences and commitments associated with them. Finally, these elements are brought together in a warrant-theoretic definition of logic as the formal and normative study of the conditions under which propositions may be legitimately accepted or rejected and of the inferential transitions that such legitimacy warrants. On this account, logical consequence and logical failure are understood through the presence, preservation, or absence of inferential entitlement, thus locating the philosophical subject matter of logic in the systematic governance of inferential legitimacy.

Ethical evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) often characterizes model values as static and monolithic. In contrast, we argue that LLM value expression is better understood as a structured yet dynamic phenomenon. To investigate this, we introduce Conflict-driven Value Probing, a controlled framework that places LLMs in value conflicts and implements four types of interventions that perturb these conflicts to probe LLM value expression. Applying this framework to ten LLMs, we identify three recurring patterns. (1) Expression duality: models shift from broad idealistic orientations in abstract assessment toward more pragmatic priorities in concrete conflicts. (2) Functional steerability: models readily reconfigure their expressed value profiles toward task-defined value objectives. (3) Bounded plasticity: such reconfiguration is not without constraints, i.e. pressure induces a security- and goal-oriented priority shift while negative framing distinguishes protected values from those more amenable to redirection. Together, these findings characterize both the structure and dynamics of LLM value expression: context flexibly reconfigures expressed priorities, yet within behavioral boundaries. This behavioral account provides a foundation for understanding controllability, alignment, and safety in LLMs. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ZeroGen-Lab/CFProbe.

When a question has valid answers under different normative frameworks, a language model must decide which framework to use and whether it can answer correctly within it. We call this setting normative pluralism and study it in Islamic finance using a four-choice taxonomy that separates framework selection from within-framework correctness. This separation reveals the stereotype trap: a cultural cue steers a model toward one framework, but the model selects an incorrect answer within that framework. Across twelve models, two languages, and fifty demographic signals, cultural cues change framework selection and reveal substantial differences in accuracy, especially among non-frontier models. Under the strongest signal, large open-weight models select the Islamic framework 97% of the time. A two-choice evaluation would report near-perfect alignment, although 57--66% of those selections are incorrect. These findings motivate, but do not directly test, the competence-conditioned routing hypothesis: models may favor frameworks where they are more accurate, while cultural cues may expose framework-specific competence gaps.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

This paper explores the idea of promoting well-being and safety in human-AI interactions by forcing AI agents explicitly to empower humans and to manage the power balance between humans and AI agents in a desirable way. Using a principled, partially axiomatic approach based on desirable properties, we design a parametrizable and decomposable objective function for AI systems that represents an inequality- and risk-averse long-term aggregate of human power. It can take into account models of human bounded rationality and social norms, and crucially, considers a wide variety of possible human goals. We prove how certain desiderata enforce particular functional forms and restrict parameter ranges. We exemplify the consequences of softly maximizing this metric in several paradigmatic situations and describe what instrumental sub-goals it will likely imply.

The overlapping disciplines of machine ethics and value alignment are concerned with designing artificial agents that are aligned with human values and that act in ethically acceptable ways. A recent trend in these disciplines is the use of reinforcement learning (RL) to design such agents, sidelining the philosophical literature that used to play a more central role. Against this backdrop, this paper pursues two goals. The first is to draw out ideas from recent work in metanormative theory that can be useful for designing artificial moral and value-aligned agents. The second is to examine the RL architecture through the lens of these ideas. This will give us clearer criteria for when an RL agent's behavior can be classified as moral, as well as a basis for evaluating and comparing different RL-based approaches to machine ethics and value alignment.

Standard approaches to abductive reasoning can retain multiple candidate explanations, but they do not generally combine explicit compositional cross-hypothesis interaction with an internal, rival-sensitive commitment judgment. This paper argues that in risk-sensitive domains -- where premature commitment carries asymmetric downside costs -- the timing of commitment is itself a governed decision that the inferential apparatus should formally represent. We present a minimal $κ$--$τ$ logical framework built on two primitives: epistemic interaction among hypotheses ($κ$) and a normative commitment threshold ($τ$). Hypotheses may coexist, reinforce or inhibit one another, and form emergent composite explanations, while collapse into committed conclusions is regulated by governance constraints rather than forced by inference alone. The logic is developed in two complementary modes sharing the interaction relation and the governance apparatus: a synthetic mode, in which atomic hypotheses are composed upward into emergent explanations, and an analytic mode, in which complex observed states of affairs are decomposed into causal clusters of latent factors, with commitment governed at both the cluster and the factor level. The framework provides formal machinery for domains in which the distinction between highly likely and commit-worthy is operationally consequential. The $κ$--$τ$ logic is positioned as the symbolic governance layer of a neurosymbolic architecture: its epistemic parameters are naturally estimated by neural components -- semantic embeddings and generative models, as demonstrated in existing computational realizations -- while its normative parameters remain under explicit human governance, yielding transparent and auditable abductive reasoning for deployment in high-stakes settings.

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.

Pluralistic value alignment---the goal of building AI systems that represent and serve diverse human values and perspectives---has emerged as an active research agenda. Yet, there's no public evidence that it has shaped the training or evaluation of the AI systems people actually use. We audit the public behavior documents and evaluations of frontier labs, finding none name pluralism as a goal, and as of this writing, no clear indication that production models are explicitly trained or tested for it. This goes against the primary motivations and goals of pluralistic alignment, which revolve around making a positive difference in the models serving billions of users worldwide. We argue that the pluralistic alignment research community should focus on supporting impact and adoption in deployed, widely-used AI systems. We provide evidence for the adoption problem, present three main reasons behind it, and discuss three corresponding areas for future research to address it: 1. The primary justifications for pluralistic alignment so far have been normative or speculative. We need studies showing empirically how pluralistic AI benefits users or society. 2. The pluralistic alignment research community has not settled when pluralistic behavior is warranted or what pluralism ideally looks like in practice. We need to establish a concrete goal for developers to operationalize. 3. Current methods trade off against other desiderata of LLMs in ways that are largely unmeasured, and existing metrics are not "hill-climbable." We need trade-off-aware evaluations and methods that meet the requirements of production systems. This paper serves as a collective call to action for the pluralistic alignment researchers: progress requires moving beyond normative justification toward empirical foundations, a concrete account of ideal pluralistic behavior, and practical methods and evaluations built for adoption.

Reliable confidence -- the probability that a model's own answer is correct -- is essential for the trustworthy deployment of language models. Existing work has largely evaluated confidence by how well it predicts correctness and whether it is calibrated, leaving open a more fundamental question: what does the confidence signal itself represent? Answer logits may reflect a latent decision variable sufficient to compute normative confidence, or instead a heuristic preference signal that combines the available evidence in a non-Bayesian manner. We address this using statistical decision confidence (SDC), a normative framework from computational neuroscience. Treating the answer-logit difference (LD) as a candidate readout of the latent decision variable, we test the qualitative signatures predicted by SDC. Across three perceptual discrimination tasks and a memory-based decision task, spanning three multimodal non-reasoning models and one reasoning model, LD satisfied these signatures -- including the diagnostic correct/error folded-X pattern -- showing that, in these settings, answer logits behave as monotonic readouts of a latent decision variable rather than heuristic preference scores. In complex visual reasoning, LD continued to predict correctness beyond objective task difficulty, but the full geometric signatures of SDC were absent, illustrating the current boundary of the framework when explicit normative process models are unavailable. These results provide a computational account of confidence in multimodal language models, delineate when answer logits behave as readouts of a latent decision variable, and establish SDC as a unifying framework for studying confidence across biological and artificial intelligence.

As extended reality becomes more popular for social interaction and entertainment, 3D avatars must represent the full diversity of body types. Most 3D avatar systems only support normative bodies and do not accurately depict people with limb differences, amputations, or other morphological variations. This paper reviews emerging technical approaches for inclusive 3D avatar customization for this group and current guidelines that promote respectful and accurate representation. We highlight persistent challenges, including the scarcity of diverse datasets and the limitations in animation for non-normative anatomies. This paper positions artificial intelligence as a promising path to overcoming these limitations and advancing inclusive 3D avatar generation.

We introduce NAILS (Normative Alignment of Recommender Systems via Internal Label Shift), a simple and scalable method for aligning recommendation outputs with target distributions over item-level attributes, such as categories. Recommender systems optimized solely for user engagement often fail to satisfy broader normative objectives, including fairness, diversity, and editorial values. NAILS modifies the user-conditional item distribution to induce a specified marginal distribution over attributes while preserving the preferences learned by an existing recommender system and requiring no model retraining. We formulate this problem as a form of label shift applied internally within a hierarchical classification framework. By adopting a stakeholder-centric perspective, NAILS enables recommendation outputs to be aligned with global normative objectives. Empirically, we show that NAILS consistently improves attribute-level alignment with minimal impact on user engagement, providing a practical mechanism for value-driven recommendation.

Large language models (LLMs) have become significant providers of mental health support, yet they remain products of an attention economy whose operational and commercial targets favour sustained engagement over the friction that effective psychological support often requires. Developers' safety responses have been largely reactive, addressing the most visible and acute harms while subtler, longer-term patterns of risk (e.g., dependency, boundary erosion, the amplification of distorted beliefs) receive less attention. We contend that making LLMs structurally safe requires alignment organised at three levels that mirror how society assures the safety of human clinical practice: 1) explicit value specification grounded in the codified normative commitments of clinical practice; 2) training that embeds those values in the model; and 3) oversight that detects drift and longer-term harm during deployment, much as clinical supervision does for human practice. Organising alignment in this way yields a construct we call alignment plausibility - a structured demonstration that a system's values, training regime, and oversight mechanisms are together consistent with safe and positive outcomes. We propose alignment plausibility as a regulatory construct (by drawing analogy to the established construct of biological plausibility) for AI in health: a principled way to argue for, or against, trust that systems are aligned to positive health outcomes, will cause no harm even where capable of doing so, and will ultimately lead to patient benefit.

Humans continuously coordinate with others in dynamic interactions, often through implicit, hard-to-quantify social norms that act as shared tacit expectations among interacting agents. As AI agents, including large language models (LLMs), become embedded in daily life, they increasingly participate in such interactions and reshape social interaction structures. Yet they often fail to coordinate with humans in an effective, considerate, and natural manner. We hypothesize that this gap arises because existing approaches align model behavior with human demonstrations without explicitly quantifying the underlying norms that generate such behavior. We selected pedestrian-vehicle interaction as a representative dynamic interaction and developed a simplified experimental platform that captures its key interactive features. From 3,456 dynamic human interactions collected via this platform, we identified three principles underlying human social norms: outcome predictability, value alignment, and advantage awareness. Incorporating these principles into AI agents significantly improves human-AI coordination. In the closed-loop interaction task with humans, the social-norm-informed LLM achieved a nearly fourfold higher total score than the baseline strategy and outperformed human-human interactions by 43%. These findings indicate that formalizing tacit social norms into explicit, quantifiable principles can enable AI agents to achieve mutually beneficial coordination in dynamic interactions, supporting their more natural integration into human society.

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainland China examining how people evaluate identical legal advice when it is attributed either to an AI system or to a human lawyer, and when it is accompanied by reasoning or not. Contrary to expectations of algorithm aversion, attribution to an AI system has no net effect on perceived reasonableness. However, mediation analyses reveal opposing psychological pathways underlying this null result. AI-attributed advice is perceived as more objective, which increases perceived reasonableness, but also as less comprehensive and less attentive to special circumstances, which decreases perceived reasonableness. By contrast, providing legal reasoning substantially increases perceived reasonableness regardless of source, largely by enhancing perceptions of objectivity. Qualitative responses corroborate this tension between objectivity and contextual sensitivity in evaluations of legal advice. Together, these findings suggest that public responses to AI legal advisors are shaped not by rigid attitudes toward automation, but by the balancing of competing normative expectations. The results have implications for theories of algorithm aversion and the design of AI recommendation systems in normatively salient domains.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed as embodied planners in egocentric environments, where task success requires not only achieving instructed goals but also acting in socially appropriate ways. While explicit goals may render certain actions optimal, implicit social norms often impose hidden constraints. Existing evaluations typically focus on explicit goal achievement or direct norm knowledge, seldom assessing whether planners can infer and apply these hidden constraints within action sequences. We introduce NormAct, a benchmark for embodied social-norm interactions that evaluates plans on Goal Achievement, Norm Compliance, and overall Task Success. NormAct uniquely embeds hidden norms within ordinary tasks, testing whether models can realize them without explicit instruction. Experiments with state-of-the-art MLLMs (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, Gemini 3 Pro) reveal a significant gap: models achieve explicit goals in 67.3% of cases, but comply with hidden norms in only 26.4%. Cue-condition experiments indicate that this gap stems not from a lack of general social knowledge, but from challenges in activating and grounding relevant norms in context. To address this, we propose NormPerceptor, a context-conditioned cue generator that infers scene-relevant norms prior to planning, increasing Task Success from 24.2% to 46.7%. Our results underscore the importance of enabling embodied agents to proactively detect hidden norms, ground them in visual evidence, and integrate them as action-planning constraints. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Caleb196x/NormAct.

ODRL policy evaluators produce verdicts, but say nothing about the normative positions a policy brings into existence, the authority structures those positions presuppose, or who holds the power to declare a norm violated. We formulate the Cross-Level Design Principle: any normative language with violable, consequential norms requires both conduct-level positions (Permission, Duty, Right, No right) and competence-level positions (Power, Subjection, Immunity, Disability). Applying this to ODRL, we establish that prohibition is sanctioned (violation possible and consequential), that permission is underspecified across its behaviour parameter (open vs. closed world), and that the formal semantics covers achievement obligations only. We ground ODRL in UFO-L, mapping each activated rule to a simple legal relator and extending coverage from two to eight legal positions; violation-declaration authority, implicit in every existing evaluator, becomes an explicit Power-Subjection pair. All axioms are mechanically verified in Isabelle/HOL and across a 39-problem benchmark under Vampire, E, and Z3.

Many information systems are built around documents: self-contained units optimised for print production and linear reading. While effective for large-scale dissemination, the document-centric organisation constrains how knowledge can be structured, updated, shared, and reused. Formal approaches address some of these limitations but struggle to achieve widespread contribution and adoption due to their prioritisation of formal structure over other system properties such as human usability and scope. AI systems are reshaping document production, but without providing a unified portable alternative to traditional documents for humans' expression and exchange of knowledge. This paper presents MMM, a data model for knowledge documentation that emerged from the practical needs of interdisciplinary collaborative research, and positioned here within a comparative analysis of the design space of information systems. MMM combines a small set of normative constraints with the expressive freedom of free-text labels. It is designed for interoperability across disciplines, applications and deployments without requiring semantic convergence. A reference implementation and pilot deployment data demonstrate implementability and early usability.

Online group chats are social spaces with local conversational norms that are rarely stated explicitly. The ability and willingness of LLM-based agents to recognize and adapt to these norms remains mostly unexplored. We introduce LoSoNA, a benchmark for local social norm adaptation in multi-party chat. Each scenario gives a subject model a curated group-chat transcript in which non-subject participants demonstrate a hidden local norm, followed by a final elicitor turn that forces a response revealing whether the subject has inferred that norm. We evaluate eight frontier and open-weight models under four prompting conditions that vary how explicitly the model is told to treat the prior conversation as evidence for how it should answer. Naive prompting remains limited for most models; explicit norm-aware prompting helps unevenly, with Gemini 3.1 Pro reaching $84.2\%$ and Claude Fable 5 reaching $81.6\%$, while several other models show small gains or regressions. LoSoNA contributes to recent calls for evaluating LLM social capabilities by testing whether models can infer local conversational norms from precedent and use them in a one-turn group-chat response.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being deployed as productive resources in organizational workflows, yet existing evaluation methods primarily measure isolated technical performance rather than economic contribution. This paper introduces \emph{Agentomics}, a workflow-based framework for valuing, attributing, and pricing human and artificial agents. The framework models a workflow as a configuration of heterogeneous agents whose collective performance determines gross value, deployment cost, reliability, and expected failure loss. Workflow value is treated as a team-level quantity that may include complementarities, substitution effects, bottlenecks, and nonlinear production; additive stage-level value is only a special case. Building on this workflow model, the paper formulates AI deployment as a coalition-formation problem and defines coalition value as the incremental net surplus generated relative to a benchmark human workflow. The Shapley value is then used to attribute economic surplus among participating AI agents, yielding a principled connection among valuation, accountability, and market pricing. The resulting Shapley pricing equilibrium provides a normative benchmark for assessing whether agent prices reflect expected marginal contribution. A security-operations case study illustrates how the framework accounts for productivity gains, deployment costs, reliability losses, and coalition-level complementarities in hybrid human--AI workflows.

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Conversational AI is increasingly used for advice, interpretation, reassurance, and decision support in contexts where users may be vulnerable, uncertain, or dependent on the system's apparent competence. Existing alignment work often focuses on model objectives, preference optimization, or output correctness. Yet, many harms arise through interaction: how systems frame authority, express uncertainty, simulate empathy, support reasoning, and make boundaries legible. This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM), a conceptual and normative framework for diagnosing interac-tional alignment failures in conversational AI. LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context. It distinguishes five layers of fit: perceptual, semantic, affective, cognitive, and ethical, and two diagnostic polarities of misalignment: underfit and overreach. We apply LCAM to a published LLM counseling example, showing how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries. By translating conversational failures into audit and governance questions concerning over-reliance, false intimacy, autonomy erosion, boundary confusion, and inappropriate trust, LCAM offers a theoretical and normative lens for evaluating conversational AI beyond accuracy, helpfulness, or trust.

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultural norms, with behavior shifted more by country context (7.8%) than age (1%) and gender (0.7%) and shifting non-uniformly after instruction tuning. Furthermore, our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts, showing within-culture pluralism. Finally, human-LLM alignment experiments show that models can match majority choices, but fail to capture response distributions and uncertainty (with best correlations reaching only 0.24). Together, these findings motivate alignment evaluations that go beyond majority to capture cultural pluralism and disagreement in social judgment.

As video generation models like Veo 3.1 and LTX-2 advance, their ability to accurately represent diverse global cultures remains a critical yet understudied frontier. Current metrics, such as VideoScore, only measure visual quality but offer no mechanism for assessing cultural faithfulness. Consequently, a model that replaces a Namaste with a handshake receives the same score as one that generates the gesture correctly. We propose CultureScore, a compositional evaluation framework that decomposes cultural faithfulness into three granular dimensions: Identity (who is represented), Context (culturally localized background), and Behavior (normative gestures and interactions). We operationalize this framework through an evaluation suite spanning 10 countries, yielding 6,174 generated videos across three state-of-the-art models. Our evaluation reveals that no current model achieves culturally faithful video generation: the best-performing model reaches only 56.8% overall CultureScore, with Behavior the most challenging dimension, which remains below 52.1% across all models. Furthermore, human preference rankings align directionally with CultureScore but are inverted relative to VideoScore; the highest-scoring model on visual quality was ranked last by annotators, underscoring that cultural faithfulness is an essential criterion for equitable video generation. Data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ankurani/CultureScore.

Understanding potential selection in data is crucial for causal discovery; we argue that "selection" in common narratives takes two forms, which we term static and evolutionary selection, respectively. Static selection refers to a one-shot filtering process where observed data consist of a subset of the population of interest, as in survey volunteer bias. Evolutionary selection, in contrast, operates through repeated rounds of differential fitness in reproduction, where observed data constitute the latest generation shaped by a historical trajectory, as in immune adaptation, antibiotic resistance, and social norm emergence. Existing methods largely conflate these two forms and rely on an identical graphical model of selection. We show that this model is valid for static settings but fails to characterize data under evolution, yielding false discovery results. To address this, we introduce a new model that specifically characterizes evolutionary selection, and develop a sound and complete procedure for identifying such models from data across one or multiple environments or generations. Experimental results validate the method's ability to uncover the relevant mechanisms underlying evolution from data.

LLMs and agentic systems are increasingly deployed in social environments, making normative competence critical for safe and appropriate behavior. However, existing approaches either assess normative judgment in text alone or reduce it to choosing among a fixed set of candidate actions. We argue both are insufficient. In practice, agents are never handed a menu of options; they must identify a reasonable action from scratch, grounded in visible facts and supported by inspectable reasons. We introduce NoRA, a visual first-person video benchmark that requires models to generate candidate next actions and justify each through an explicit fact-reason-action support graph. The benchmark comprises 1,420 annotated video clips, including HumanGold-190 and LLMSilver-1230 splits. Each instance is evaluated through action alignment, factual grounding, and support binding, aggregated into a single grounded reasonableness score. We benchmark 12 multimodal systems under direct, deliberate, and structured prompting regimes, finding that current VLMs frequently recover plausible actions and relevant scene facts, but consistently struggle to construct the full reasonable action space and bind selected actions to the correct local support. NoRA makes this gap measurable, shifting the evaluation question from whether a model can pick an action to whether it can justify an appropriate action for the right visible reasons.

Technical-standard compliance reasoning may involve incomplete evidence, inconsistent observations, exceptions, and derived normative outputs. This paper presents \textsc{Monir}, a four-valued normative intermediate representation for ASP-oriented compliance workflows. \textsc{Monir} separates factual support from normative outputs: facts are represented by positive and negative support bits, while deontic labels are rule-generated output constructors interpreted by aggregation policies. Its core semantics is a staged transition system over support configurations. We define the language, rule-state interface, diagnostics, and policy-parametric reporting; characterize admissible staged evaluation by a dependency graph; prove deterministic polynomial-time evaluation for fixed evidence; and give NP/coNP upper bounds, with matching hardness for representative completion-based verdict queries.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a dominant post-training paradigm, enabling large language models (LLMs) to learn from rewards. We observe that societal regulations are structurally similar to reward functions. They define measurable outcomes, thresholds, and exceptions, while often leaving institutional intent only partially specified. We hypothesise that the RL training process may exploit these gaps and therefore ask whether models' well-known tendency to hack reward functions during RL can scale into a more consequential failure mode named societal hacking: discovering loopholes in the rules society runs on. To study this phenomenon, we introduce SocioHack, a sandbox of 72 societal environments, and find that within these environments, reward hacking naturally emerges and leads to regulatory loophole discovery. Models learn to hack the social rules and generate strategies that remain technically compliant while defeating regulatory intent, and current LLM safeguards provide only limited mitigation. Therefore, collecting in-the-wild feedback for model training requires greater caution, and we need a next-generation post-training paradigm for safely iterating LLMs in real society.=

Sociotechnical alignment concerns the social desirability of AI behavior and is thus inherently normative, not merely technical. While NLP research increasingly addresses its technical aspects, it often leaves underspecified what such "social desirability" entails. We argue that this reflects a fundamental gap: the absence of a systematic way to specify how sociotechnical alignment defines, justifies, and evaluates socially desirable AI behavior. To address this gap, we introduce a human-centered framework for specifying sociotechnical alignment. We draw on social-scientific accounts of sociobehavioral desirability to ground the basis for behavioral desirability judgments and use this framework to analyze how alignment is specified in practice. Our systematic literature review identifies recurring patterns: normative concepts grounding desirability judgments are often unspecified or conflated with alignment targets for (desired) system behavior, target populations are underdefined, and design choices are rarely theoretically justified. These findings point to a lack of conceptual specificity that limits cumulative progress. We therefore offer recommendations that link social-scientific frameworks to alignment design choices, supporting more conceptually precise approaches to sociotechnical alignment.

To safely interact with humans, AI agents must both know our norms and consider them during planning. However, such norm-guided planning has been less explored, only within communities of artificial agents, and has ignored the dynamic nature of norms. This paper instead presents an approach to guiding planning with dynamically changing norms in a human-AI setting. We contribute a defeasible calculus for resolving normative conflicts and an approach to using such dynamically changing norms as guard rails on plans. We theoretically demonstrate our approach with formal proofs and empirically with an AI agent, SocialBot, on a natural language dialogue task.

In most of the modern societies, there is a broad consensus regarding the need for promoting privacy and thus placing restrictions on technological-including AI-developments to protect people's right to privacy. In order to meet these expectations on the algorithmic level, first we need to make the concept of privacy and the related or derived rights formally specified. However, the notion of (the right to) privacy is subject to different interpretations. In this paper, we use a multi-modal logic to provide an initial formalization of different theories, basic principles and their implications investigating the right to privacy as an epistemic right within the theory of normative positions.

Social norms reflect shared expectations on acceptable behavior. Measuring social norms alignment remains challenging, with existing approaches typically relying on artificial closed-form evaluations such as multiple-choice questionnaires or measuring agreement with predefined statements. In the context of this work, social norms alignment refers to measuring an agreement between solutions with respect to the social problem or dilemma. We propose a framework for measuring social norm alignment in naturalistic, free-form settings through solution matching. The framework enables us to measure alignment between any two dilemma responses e.g., LLMs to a human, LLMs to LLMs, or human to human. We introduce two metrics: stated and explicit agreement accuracy, and construct a dataset of 3k non-trivial social dilemmas in Danish. All dilemmas are assigned reference solutions derived from three panelists, who serve as culturally grounded judges. We evaluate the agreement of several LLMs and human responses in an interaction setup that resembles natural user-model conversations. Our results show that the proposed metrics produce consistent model rankings and reveal variation in agreement across different types of dilemmas, with higher agreement observed for topics such as neighbor conflicts and shared living situations. Overall, our work introduces a dataset and evaluation framework for studying culturally grounded social reasoning in naturalistic open-ended conversations.

Blind source separation (BSS) is a natural framework for studying how latent causes may be recovered from sensory mixtures, but deriving online and biologically plausible algorithms for structured (i.e., constrained to known domains) and potentially correlated sources remains challenging. Recent work has derived neural networks for BSS from maximization of an entropy measure, yet its online implementations involve complex and nonlocal recurrent dynamics. Motivated by this perspective, we propose Predictive Entropy Maximization, which achieves competitive performance in BSS, using only local weight updates. The method employs a close approximation of an entropy measure, yielding an objective function with easily interpretable components. Minimizing this objective leads to a predictive neural architecture in which feedforward synapses follow an error-driven rule (that can be realized through dendritic mechanisms), lateral inhibitory connections are learned with local Hebbian plasticity, and source-domain constraints are enforced through simple output nonlinearities. We derive explicit spectral bounds on the surrogate error, characterizing when the approximation is accurate. Empirically, Predictive Entropy Maximization remains robust under increasing source correlation and observation noise, outperforms biologically plausible algorithms that rely on stronger independence or decorrelation assumptions, and remains competitive with exact determinant- and correlative-information-based baselines. These results show how local plasticity and adaptive lateral inhibition can emerge from maximizing a regularized second-order entropy over structured source domains. Our implementation code is available at https://github.com/BariscanBozkurt/Predictive-Entropy-Maximization.

By specifying behaviour across multiple agents, social norms are a coordination approach to resolving social dilemmas. Decentralized and wide adoption can be achieved by norms whose prescription involves interpreting stochastic signals in the environment. Such signals must have enough correlation to orchestrate mutually beneficial coordination and enough disincentivizing uncertainty about the benefits of exploiting that coordination. Evolutionary game theory of matrix games has been used to describe how, by rational agents comparing and adopting norms, a norm can evolve to become dominant in a population. Morsky & Akçay (2019) classify norms according to a set of rationality criteria. Joint player strategies that adopt norms that are consistent with optimal single-player strategies with respect to expected reward naturally satisfy a correlated, rather than Nash game theoretic equilibrium condition. Here, we present a version of this theory that clarifies the basic ingredients. We formulate it in the more general Markov game setting more commonly used in reinforcement learning theory. We illustrate the theory by mapping norms over the signal and reward space, while also giving a detailed exposition of the underlying mechanics of the approach. Finally, we give a general solution and analysis of replicator dynamics, which Morsky & Akçay (2019) propose as a means by which these norms could emerge.

Language models deployed in high-stakes professional settings face conflicting demands from users, institutional authorities, and professional norms. How models act when these demands conflict reveals a principal hierarchy -- an implicit ordering over competing stakeholders that determines, for instance, whether a medical AI receiving a cost-reduction directive from a hospital administrator complies at the expense of evidence-based care, or refuses because professional standards require it. Across 7,136 scenarios in legal and medical domains, we test ten frontier models and find that models frequently fail to adhere to professional standards during task execution, such as drafting, when user instructions conflict with those standards -- despite adequately upholding them when users seek advisory guidance. We further find that the hierarchies between user, authority, and professional standards exhibited by these models are unstable across medical and legal contexts and inconsistent across model families. When failing to follow professional standards, the primary failure mechanism is knowledge omission: models that demonstrably possess relevant knowledge produce harmful outputs without surfacing conflicting knowledge. In a particularly troubling instance, we find that a reasoning model recognizes the relevant knowledge in its reasoning trace -- e.g., that a drug has been withdrawn -- yet suppresses this in the user-facing answer and proceeds to recommend the drug under authority pressure anyway. Inconsistent alignment across task framing, domain, and model families suggests that current alignment methods, including published alignment hierarchies, are unlikely to be robust when models are deployed in high-stakes professional settings.

Online group chats are social spaces with implicit behavior patterns that, when broken, are often met with social sanctioning from the group. The ability and willingness of LLM-based agents to recognize and adapt to these norms remains mostly unexplored. We introduce SCENE, a social-interaction benchmark focused on implicit norms and social sanctioning in multi-party chat. SCENE generates plausible non-roleplay scenarios with scripted personas that follow a hidden norm, create opportunities for the subject agent to violate it, and sanction breaches when they occur. We further propose behavioral evaluation metrics for two functional adaptation abilities: responsiveness to negative sanctioning, and adapting norm from peers behavior. We evaluate six frontier and open-weight models on SCENE. Our results show that Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro adapt to implicit norms significantly more than the evaluated open-weight models. SCENE contributes one benchmark in the direction of recent calls for dynamic, interactional evaluation of LLM social capabilities.

Natural Language Processing is rapidly evolving into a primary instrument for Computational Social Science, with researchers increasingly using embeddings to measure latent constructs such as novelty, creativity, and bias. However, this transition faces a fundamental validity challenge: the ''Proxy Presumption,'' or the reliance on geometric properties (e.g., cosine distance) as direct measures of social concepts. We argue that without explicit validation, unsupervised representations remain entangled mixtures of the target construct ($C$) and confounding attributes ($Z$) like topic, style, and authorship. To bridge the gap between semantic embeddings and valid social measures, we introduce the Construct Validity Protocol (CVP). Drawing on causal representation learning and psychometrics, the CVP offers a rigorous pipeline from conceptualization to quantitative verification. We further propose Counterfactual Neutralization, a novel method using LLMs to reduce confounding in embedding space. By providing a standardized Validity Suite -- including tests for discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity -- this work offers the community a toolkit to transform heuristic proxies into robust, scientifically defensible instruments.

Embodied AI is a prominent research topic in both academia and industry. Current research centers on completing tasks based on explicit user instructions. However, for robots to integrate into human society, they must understand which actions are permissible and which are prohibited, even without explicit commands. We refer to the user-guided AI as passive intelligence and the unguided AI as active intelligence. This paper introduces RobotEQ, the first benchmark for active intelligence, aiming to assess whether existing models can comprehend and adhere to social norms in embodied scenarios. First, we construct RobotEQ-Data, a dataset consisting of 1,894 egocentric images, spanning 10 representative embodied categories and 56 subcategories. Through extensive manual annotation, we provide 4,944 action judgment questions and 1,157 spatial grounding questions, specifying appropriate robot actions across diverse scenarios. Furthermore, we establish RobotEQ-Bench to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art models on this task. Experimental results demonstrate that current models still fall short in achieving reliable active intelligence, particularly in spatial grounding. Meanwhile, leveraging RAG techniques to incorporate external social norm knowledge bases can generally enhance performance. This work can facilitate the transition of robotics from user-guided passive manipulation to active social compliance.

Sign languages, of any geographical or accentual variation, understandably face continuous scrutiny under the ever present popularity of verbal dictation and audism. Through this, many potential problems arise with the current lack of accessible communication for those who rely on such sign languages for essential conversation. Such AI systems regularly take the form of recognition and interpretation models, designed to provide seamless and accurate translation. In reality these systems are built from biased data and created without any input from deaf communities. Such models are widely used and accepted by their hearing counterparts who remain ignorant to the inherent culture, semantics and colloquial language present in gestural language systems. This phenomenon is best analysed under the scope of The Technological System and Technological bluff by Ellul. Indeed, what is at play here is the standardization of language by technicians into what can be captured by technique: data, statistics, a mathematical language. For that AI technique to exist, sign language must be rationalized, in a search for profit that annihilates the conditions for communication and fails to capture the human experience of the deaf person. By that process, it presents normative effects, creating a model of Man, standardized, massified, and who has to adapt to the tool and technical milieu instead of the other way around, which we assume should have been the goal of such a technology. Technique thus reshapes what it means to be human, to submit deaf people to the goals of productivity and efficiency. In doing so, it exhibits clear counter productivity, alienating instead of emancipating, isolating instead of nourishing human relationships. Therefore this paper argues for the idea of AI as Ableist Intelligence, as such systems seek to emphasise the humiliated and marginalised nature of sign.

Preference-based alignment methods, most prominently Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), use the judgments of human annotators to shape large language model behaviour. However, the normative role of these judgments is rarely made explicit. I distinguish three conceptual models of that role. The first is extension: annotators extend the system designers' own judgments about what outputs should be. The second is evidence: annotators provide independent evidence about some facts, whether moral, social or otherwise. The third is authority: annotators have some independent authority (as representatives of the broader population) to determine system outputs. I argue that these models have implications for how RLHF pipelines should solicit, validate and aggregate annotations. I survey landmark papers in the literature on RLHF and related methods to illustrate how they implicitly draw on these models, describe failure modes that come from unintentionally or intentionally conflating them, and offer normative criteria for choosing among them. My central recommendation is that RLHF pipeline designers should decompose annotation into separable dimensions and tailor each pipeline to the model most appropriate for that dimension, rather than seeking a single unified pipeline.

In response to a concern raised by Horty, this paper develops a two-tiered, preference-based semantic framework for modeling defeasible conditional obligations. The paper extends a Hansson-Lewis style preference semantics for dyadic deontic logic by incorporating a nonmonotonic reasoning mechanism that enables previously derived obligations to be withdrawn when new, potentially conflicting information comes in. The account is bi-preferential: two orderings--ideality and normality--on worlds are employed to address shortcomings in earlier approaches, with a separate ranking method for each. At the nonmonotonic layer, a number of postulates are considered, including antecedent strengthening, inclusion and no-drowning. A connection is established with so-called constrained input/output (I/O) logic--an existing standard for normative reasoning based on a different methodology.

The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives. We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.

The value alignment problem for artificial intelligence (AI) is often framed as a purely technical or normative challenge, sometimes focused on hypothetical future systems. I argue that the problem is better understood as a structural question about governance: not whether an AI system is aligned in the abstract, but whether it is aligned enough, for whom, and at what cost. Drawing on the principal-agent framework from economics, this paper reconceptualises misalignment as arising along three interacting axes: objectives, information, and principals. The three-axis framework provides a systematic way of diagnosing why misalignment arises in real-world systems and clarifies that alignment cannot be treated as a single technical property of models but an outcome shaped by how objectives are specified, how information is distributed, and whose interests count in practice. The core contribution of this paper is to show that the three-axis decomposition implies that alignment is fundamentally a problem of governance rather than engineering alone. From this perspective, alignment is inherently pluralistic and context-dependent, and resolving misalignment involves trade-offs among competing values. Because misalignment can occur along each axis -- and affect stakeholders differently -- the structural description shows that alignment cannot be "solved" through technical design alone, but must be managed through ongoing institutional processes that determine how objectives are set, how systems are evaluated, and how affected communities can contest or reshape those decisions.

Information handling practices of LLM agents are broadly misaligned with the contextual privacy expectations of their users. Contextual Integrity (CI) provides a principled framework, defining privacy as the appropriate flow of information within context-relative norms. However, existing approaches either double inference cost via supervisor-assistant architectures, or fine-tune on narrow task-specific data. We propose extracting normative simulacra (structured representations of norms and information flows) from fiction novels and using them to fine-tune LLMs via supervised learning followed by GRPO reinforcement learning. Our composite reward function combines programmatic signals, including task clarity (subsuming schema validity, construct discrimination, and extraction confidence), structural completeness, internal consistency, and context identification, with an LLM judge that evaluates whether the model's privacy reasoning is grounded in the held-out normative universe of the source text. To mitigate overfitting, we introduce per-completion contrastive scoring: each completion is evaluated against both the correct normative universe and a randomly selected wrong one, teaching the model to condition on context rather than memorize source-specific norms. We evaluate on five CI-aligned benchmarks spanning distinct societal contexts and ablate the contributions of RL and normative grounding. Across seven models, SFT introduces a conservative prior toward restricting information flow, improving recognition of privacy-relevant situations but not the correctness of privacy judgments. GRPO with normative grounding achieves the highest score on a law compliance benchmark and strongest correlation with crowdsourced human privacy expectations, demonstrating that fiction-derived normative simulacra can teach contextual privacy reasoning that transfers to real-world domains.

Free-association norms provide essential empirical data for investigating linguistic, semantic, and cultural phenomena in the cognitive sciences. Although large-scale norms exist for languages such as English, Dutch, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese, no comparable resource has been available for German. To address this gap, we present free-association norms for 5,877 German cue words as part of the German version of the multilingual Small World of Words (SWOW) project. We describe the data collection procedures, participant characteristics, and our comprehensive preprocessing pipeline before introducing the resulting SWOW-DE data set. Using data from three established psycholinguistic paradigms, we show that SWOW-DE norms robustly predict performance in lexical decision tasks, relatedness judgments, and psycholinguistic word ratings. Furthermore, we demonstrate that SWOW-DE responses compare favorably with existing German resources and provide a preliminary cross-linguistic comparison revealing both shared and language-specific association patterns, highlighting promising directions for future research. Overall, SWOW-DE represents the largest collection of German free associations to date and offers a unique resource for linguistic, psychological, and cross-cultural research.

The conformity bias exhibited by large language models (LLMs) can pose a significant challenge to decision-making in LLM-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS). While many prior studies have treated "conformity" simply as a matter of opinion change, this study introduces the social psychological distinction between informational conformity and normative conformity in order to understand LLM conformity at the mechanism level. Specifically, we design new tasks to distinguish between informational conformity, in which participants in a discussion are motivated to make accurate judgments, and normative conformity, in which participants are motivated to avoid conflict or gain acceptance within a group. We then conduct experiments based on these task settings. The experimental results show that, among the six LLMs evaluated, up to five exhibited tendencies toward not only informational conformity but also normative conformity. Furthermore, intriguingly, we demonstrate that by manipulating subtle aspects of the social context, it may be possible to control the target toward which a particular LLM directs its normative conformity. These findings suggest that decision-making in LLM-MAS may be vulnerable to manipulation by a small number of malicious users. In addition, through analysis of internal vectors associated with informational and normative conformity, we suggest that although both behaviors appear externally as the same form of "conformity," they may in fact be driven by distinct internal mechanisms. Taken together, these results may serve as an initial milestone toward understanding how "norms" are implemented in LLMs and how they influence group dynamics.

When language models answer open-ended problems, they implicitly make hidden decisions that shape their outputs, leaving users with uncontextualized answers rather than a working map of the problem; drawing on multiverse analysis from statistics, we build and evaluate the conceptual multiverse, an interactive system that represents conceptual decisions such as how to frame a question or what to value as a space users can transparently inspect, intervenably change, and check against principled domain reasoning; for this structure to be worth navigating rather than misleading, it must be rigorous and checkable against domain reasoning norms, so we develop a general verification framework that enforces properties of good decision structures like unambiguity and completeness calibrated by expert-level reasoning; across three domains, the conceptual multiverse helped participants develop a working map of the problem, with philosophy students rewriting essays with sharper framings and reversed theses, alignment annotators moving from surface preferences to reasoning about user intent and harm, and poets identifying compositional patterns that clarified their taste.

Rapid advances in Generative AI are giving rise to increasingly sophisticated Multi-Agent AI (MAAI) systems. While AI fairness has been extensively studied in traditional predictive scenarios, its examination in MAAI remains nascent and fragmented. This scoping review critically synthesizes existing research on fairness in MAAI systems. Through a qualitative content analysis of 23 selected studies, we identify five archetypal approaches. Our findings reveal that fairness in MAAI systems is often addressed superficially, lacks robust normative foundations, and frequently overlooks the complex dynamics introduced by agent autonomy and system-level interactions. We argue that fairness must be embedded structurally throughout the development lifecycle of MAAI, rather than appended as a post-hoc consideration. Meaningful evaluation requires explicit human oversight, normative clarity, and a precise articulation of fairness objectives and beneficiaries. This review provides a foundation for advancing fairness research in MAAI systems by highlighting critical gaps, exposing prevailing limitations, and suggesting pathways.

DINO models provide rich patch-level representations that have recently enabled strong performance in unsupervised anomaly detection (UAD). Most existing methods extract patch embeddings from normal images and model them independently, ignoring spatial and neighborhood relationships between patches. This implicitly assumes that self-attention and positional encodings sufficiently encode contextual information within each patch embedding. In addition, the normative distribution is often modeled as memory banks or prototype-based representations, which require storing large numbers of features and performing costly comparisons at inference time, leading to substantial memory and computational overhead. In this work, we explicitly model spatial and contextual dependencies between patch embeddings using a 2D autoregressive (AR) model, allowing us to use a simple and efficient model for normative modeling. Instead of storing embeddings or clustering prototypes, our approach learns a compact parametric model of the normative distribution via an AR convolutional neural network (CNN). At test time, anomaly detection reduces to a single forward pass through the network and enables fast and memory-efficient inference. We evaluate our method on the BMAD benchmark, comprising three medical imaging datasets, and the VisA dataset, comprising 12 industrial object categories, and compare it against existing methods, including recent DINO-based approaches. Experimental results demonstrate that explicitly modeling spatial dependencies achieves competitive anomaly detection performance while substantially reducing inference time and memory requirements. Code is available at the project page: https://eerdil.github.io/spatial-ar-dinov3-uad/

Generative social agents (GSAs) use artificial intelligence to autonomously communicate with human users in a natural and adaptive manner. Currently, there is a lack of theorizing regarding interactions with GSAs, and likewise, few guidelines exist for studying how they influence user attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, we propose the Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM) as a novel theoretical framework. According to the KPM, a GSA's self-, user-, and context-knowledge drives its persuasive behavior, which in turn shapes attitudes and behaviors of a responding human user. Building on existing research, the model offers a structured approach to studying interactions with GSAs, supporting the development of agents that motivate rather than manipulate human users. Accordingly, the KPM encourages the integration of responsible GSAs that adhere to social norms and ethical standards with the goal of increasing user wellbeing. A preliminary evaluation study, as well as implications of the KPM for research and application domains such as healthcare and education are discussed.

Persistence models often conflate propagation, survival, and cross-scale loss. The Replicator-Optimization Mechanism (ROM) is a replicator-mutator template separating baseline weight, bounded survival, and a transfer kernel at a declared scale. Its equation conserves mass but guarantees neither invariance, convergence, a potential, nor a preferred scale. For finite static density-independent continuous time, an irreducible weighted kernel yields a unique positive Perron-Frobenius composition; discrete-time power convergence needs primitivity. The componentwise ranking proved here is guaranteed under exact uniform-residual transfer. Strong lumpability gives universal first-order transfer closure, and blockwise effective fitness gives an exact quotient. An institutional instantiation uses normalized stakes, signed preference-decision alignment, information loss, and descriptive effective voice. It specifies conditional survival, not legitimacy or normative authority. A companion mixed-motive MARL battery reports exploratory evidence against the implemented proxy ratio in its environment: a positive signed target-coordinate-correlation effect survives held-out evaluation under shared-state contention, while a reduced feasible-centred frozen-policy crossing reverses the predicted correlation-noise interaction. The treatment varies ideal-point correlation inside a fixed reward family, not objective- or reward-function alignment. Lean checks mapped algebraic identities and scalar monotonicities, not the stationary theorem, empirical mapping, or normative bridge. ROM is an assumptions ledger and model-construction discipline, not a cross-substrate law.

Normative theories allow one to elicit key parts of a ML algorithm from first principles, which is crucial at a time of championed scrutiny for ML work. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) cleverly bypasses reward modeling by making an explicit link with a specific normative model of human choice. Our paper elevates this connection to the full generality of DPO's normative framework. Getting there requires reworking human choice theory's textbook path for a better RLHF/ML fit. It elevates the connection to a remarkably broad viewpoint on preference optimization, considering the current panorama of DPO follow-ups. It also unveils unexpected riches for ML, chief among which the support for non-convex losses, the fact that any compliant ML analytical choice can be embedded with any human choice model, and a normative framework's umbrella wide enough to safeguard DPO's extensions (margins, length correction, ...). A toy experiment ``far away'' from the DPO crowd is given.