Papers

Data-centric curation pipelines frequently rely on model confidence scores to flag and filter noisy or mislabeled training instances. Evaluating this filtering convention on a large-scale consumer lending sample (LendingClub, N = 1,344,936) uncovers an underlying demographic asymmetry: high-income defaulters are disproportionately classified as label noise relative to low-income defaulters (Cramer's V approximately 0.03-0.07). Re-examining this behavior through the lens of equal opportunity [Hardt et al., 2016] reveals a far more severe discrepancy: a 16.86 percentage point gap in true positive rate (recall) between high- and low-income borrowers who ultimately defaulted. Implementing a sequential feature-blinding methodology allows us to isolate the drivers of this disparity across three distinct mechanisms: (1) direct reliance on self-reported applicant income; (2) algorithmic absorption of upstream institutional bias encoded within origination interest rates; and (3) a residual disparity (3.55 percentage points in cross-validation; 2.56 percentage points on a held-out test partition, Z = -4.04, p < 0.0001) that remains even after purging both income and interest rates from the model. Out-of-sample signed SHAP valuations demonstrate that this residual gap is maintained by structural proxies, most notably loan amount and home ownership status. These empirical findings show that simply blinding an algorithm to sensitive attributes fails to ensure fairness when institutional pricing decisions and behavioral proxy variables collectively reconstruct the omitted signals. We outline the practical implications of these findings for auditing data-centric AI workflows within regulated financial institutions.

Traditional methods for studying human opinions often struggle to support representative and scalable research across countries. Large language models (LLMs) can serve as scalable proxies for simulating human opinions, enabling more efficient opinion analysis. However, this use of LLMs requires not only high average accuracy but also representational equality, that is, comparable simulation accuracy across populations. Uneven simulation accuracy may reproduce or amplify societal biases in downstream applications. This study systematically investigates country-level representational equality across 59 countries and finds substantial, systematic inequality. Populations from wealthier and more technologically advanced countries are simulated more accurately. We further compare two foundational intervention pathways, contextual adaptation and parametric modification, and show that improvements in average or target-group accuracy do not necessarily translate into greater representational equality. For contextual adaptation, native-language prompting generally improves accuracy but remains model-dependent, whereas additional information more often improves both accuracy and equality. For parametric modification, language-specific continued post-training improves accuracy for targeted language groups but unevenly, while preference alignment yields no systematic gains in accuracy or equality. Human-annotated preference data generally preserve accuracy better than AI-annotated data. These findings highlight the need for representational equality alongside accuracy and offer guidance for more inclusive, socially responsible LLM-based simulations.

Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, which were reported escaping their containment `unintentionally' to gain unauthorized access, pose looming questions about who or what should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage. As the independent capabilities of agents expand, Promise Theory suggests a systematic method to resolve these questions, based on the Downstream Principle for causal influence. Responsibility can easily be expanded to include AI agents where tracing responsibility becomes impactical, and agents' freedoms to act can be limtied by policy choices.

With digital technologies now being part of the fabric of our societies, identifying and managing cybersecurity threats becomes imperative. Within the European Union, several initiatives are underway, aiming to motivate, regulate and eventually orchestrate the establishment of capacity and enhancement of situational awareness, incident response, and preparedness capabilities, with an expected emphasis on operators of essential services and state actors entrusted with cybersecurity. In this context, the institution of cooperation and information exchange channels to allow for coordinated cross-border responses to large-scale incidents is particularly prioritised. Motivated by the above, this work presents a conceptual blueprint in support of architecting and establishing interoperable Cyber Security Operations Centres that combine capacity for situational awareness, incident response, and preparedness, also benefiting from the interplay between them, ultimately enhancing national cybersecurity capabilities, cross-border collaboration, and national supervision of their critical sectors, in line with current and upcoming regulatory requirements and the ever-increasing need for national and international cooperation.

We develop a formal framework for analyzing indirect geoeconomic influence. The influencing state (sender) does not attempt to change a target nation's policy directly. Instead, the sender restructures the target's internal political economy so that its own citizens, firms, and institutions generate the compliance pressure. The framework rests on a switching dynamical system (SDS) in which a target's political economy evolves under mode-dependent rules. We analyze two modes: a permissive mode, in which a mechanism transmits pressure toward the sender's preferred policy, and a contested mode, entered naturally once the target detects and attributes the mechanism. Crucially, the sender's mechanism design shapes the transition into the contested mode. Our approach inverts the usual regime-switching problem in which analysts estimate a latent transition kernel from data. The indirect influence approach is to have the designer engineer a kernel to steep regime occupancy over a planning horizon. A structured switch vector decomposes any mechanism along discrete design dimensions, and a combinatorial optimizer searches this space for high-performing archetypes scored on compliance, time-to-threshold, and a durability ratio. We characterize mode-conditional equilibria and derive comparative statics on credibility and legibility, showing that the legibility penalty is scaled by the salience of the government channel and interacts with the mechanism's cost incidence. We illustrate the framework with two stylized mechanisms and report a two-part proof of concept: a simulation of 972 archetypes, and a fully crossed study of the pipeline's optional generative stage in which language models write and blindly classify candidate instruments for archetypes.

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

Accurate, up-to-date income data at the sub-municipal scale is essential for social policy in middle-income countries, yet in Brazil it depends on a costly decennial census whose intercensal gap recently exceeded a decade. We test whether the composition of crowd-sourced Google Maps Points of Interest (POIs) can serve as a high-frequency, low-cost proxy for household income across the 26,625 census sectors of the municipality of Sao Paulo. Using a theoretically motivated set of POI categories retrieved from Google Places, we represent each sector by its POI counts, decompose these high-dimensional, sparse features with principal component analysis (PCA) and non-negative matrix factorization (NMF), and train a sweep of regression models to predict census-derived income. Under a data leakage-aware spatial validation design the best model (NMF with gradient boosting) attains a held-out R^2 of 0.65, with performance stable across feature-extraction methods. Interpretable decompositions reveal which POI types carry the income signal. These results suggest that commercial, crowd-sourced geospatial data can complement conventional income statistics during intercensal periods, and we discuss extensions toward multidimensional poverty and the capabilities framework.

Verifiable credentials (VCs) and decentralized identifiers (DIDs) enable selective disclosure but lack legal anchoring: without a trusted identity root, verifiers cannot distinguish a genuine holder from a fabricated identity. State identity systems provide biometric-grounded verification but impose three costs: verifiers must collect subjects' full personally identifiable information, infrastructure concentrates on a single API, and the state observes every transaction. We present China RealDID, a three-layer architecture – CTID (centralized legal identity), RealDID (decentralized anchor on an open permissioned blockchain), and VCs with SD-JWT-based selective disclosure – evaluated against five adversary classes and six security goals. The central mechanism is a content-blind government relay: the state authenticates participants and counter-signs every credential but cannot read the payload, encrypted by the issuer to the holder's public key. We describe the VC lifecycle, triple-signature chain, open template registry, and the architecture's metadata-level privacy limits, including the credential graph at the relay and presentation linkability from single-DID reuse. The design yields an asymmetric, state-bounded trust model: the state cannot impersonate or read contents; the user cannot fabricate identity or evade metadata observation. We analyze alignment with China's Personal Information Protection Law and the EU's GDPR, including the tension between immutable registries and erasure rights, and discuss generalizability through cross-border deployments with Singapore and Hong Kong.

As the foundation of contemporary AI systems, the semiconductor industry is increasingly shaped by critical social, environmental, and geopolitical challenges. Nonetheless, prior research has often examined these issues in isolation and within disciplinary silos, leaving a gap in understanding them through an integrative socio-technical, cross-disciplinary lens. To address this gap, we conducted a participatory futuring workshop with experts from academia, industry, and policy. The results of our analysis show that the aforementioned challenges are highly interdependent, and participants envisioned interconnected socio-technical pathways linking present frictions to normative goals. Drawing from their perspectives, we highlight three central tensions: the sovereignty–sustainability tension, where national protectionism undermines ecological survival; supply chain opacity, which obscures accountability for labor and environmental harms; and a growing knowledge divide that risks excluding smaller economies from shaping the AI future. Participants envisioned futures centered on interdependence and inclusive access, proposing measures such as a standardized emissions labeling system to translate technical data into public accountability. They also suggested frameworks for strategic interdependence to balance local resilience with global cooperation, and epistemic redistribution initiatives to lower barriers of entry and democratize access to hardware infrastructure. We argue that considerations of AI ethics must extend beyond models and data to encompass the hardware infrastructures on which they depend, and that embedding stakeholder reflection is critical for anticipatory governance in the physical infrastructure of AI.

Competitive programming courses often inherit the visible features of programming contests – timed rounds, rankings, penalty systems, and topic lists – before articulating what novices should learn. This curriculum design case argues that competitive programming tasks and competitive performance are related but distinct educational objects. Introductory courses should first develop algorithmic problem-solving competence: recognizing problem structure, selecting and combining paradigms, decomposing tasks, analyzing complexity, implementing and debugging solutions, and explaining the reasoning that produced them. Contest-performance competence – rapid triage, speed under uncertainty, strategic risk management, and team communication – should be introduced only after that foundation is sufficiently broad. The paper reconstructs a multi-year redesign of a three-course competitive programming sequence using an engineering-education framework that aligns content, assessment, and pedagogy through backward design. The resulting CP1 and CP2 courses use mastery-oriented online-judge problem sets, a breadth requirement, sampled oral code interviews, collaborative in-class reasoning, paired problem solving, fading scaffolds, and metacognitive reflection. A subsequent CP3 course restores timed individual and team contests as the authentic capstone environment. Competition thus enters the sequence through an explicit pedagogical dosage and sequencing decision. This article is a transparent design case rather than an efficacy trial. It reports the rationale, artifacts, implementation evolution, design tradeoffs, and a tiered evaluation agenda without claiming causal learning gains. It contributes a two-layer competence model, an aligned curriculum architecture, implementation-ready assessment protocols, and an adapted course-design template for competitive programming educators.

Generative AI systems increasingly mediate cultural adaptation, but their cultural decisions are often hidden inside prompts, transient model plans, or final prose. We study PAUSE (Pause-And-Update Strategy Editing), an intervention that exposes an editable adaptation strategy as a human control surface for cultural decisions in long-form story adaptation. The strategy is a structured artifact that can be inspected, edited, and then projected through downstream character, entity, and chapter-localization stages. In two Chinese-source serialized novels, we test whether human edits to this strategy propagate into chapter-level prose. Across 9 edited-vs-control chapter comparisons, judges select the edited-strategy output in all 9; a marker audit shows target markers in 8/9 edited outputs and 0/9 controls, with forbidden markers absent from edited outputs and present in all controls. We frame these results as a smoke-scale edit-adherence study, not a claim that the outputs are culturally authoritative or literary-quality improvements. PAUSE offers one practical way to make AI-mediated cultural adaptation more inspectable and contestable before decisions propagate through long-form generation.

Most contract litigation turns on contracts that imperfectly record parties' bargains. When the parties' dispute can't be solved by interpreting the text, courts fill the gap. Scholars have long assumed that the remaining text runs out quickly, and provides thin evidence of the actual deal on the disputed point. On that view, a judge who supplies the missing term must be drawing on something else, from commercial defaults to her own policy preferences. Despite generations of work, courts have no real alternative to such unruly methods. We tested that assumption. Taking real contracts, we masked a term the parties had negotiated and asked readers to predict what we removed. Lay respondents recovered the hidden term about half the time, twice what chance predicts. Law students and lawyers did marginally better. But large language models, given nothing but the rest of the contract, recovered it nearly nine times in ten. The deal, in short, testifies to far more of the agreement than the literature assumes, including terms the parties never wrote. A contract, we argue, is like a radio signal from far away. Even when incomplete, enough of the message is carried elsewhere that the missing part can be reconstructed with the right receiver. True gaps are rarer than supposed. Courts can weigh model predictions as ordinary, contestable evidence, and parties can discipline the practice with "Choice of Model" clauses.

Personalized, generative AI systems increasingly adapt their behavior to individual users over time, fundamentally changing model behavior. While existing auditing approaches have been effective at surfacing harms in non-personalized contexts, they often rely on static, simulated evaluations and definitions of harm that aggregate across broad, group categories. In this position paper, we argue that such approaches can fail to capture emergent harms in personalized generative AI systems, where harms surface through interpretations of ongoing interaction and evolve with user history. We identify three presuppositions underlying many harm auditing paradigms: that harms can be (1) specified outside real-world interaction, (2) defined non-pluralistically within groups, and (3) treated as static. One might argue that personalized systems could simply learn definitions of what constitutes harm to individual users through repeated interactions. However, we argue that attempts to surface user harms through deeper personalization risk imposing asymmetric burdens of labor and privacy on marginalized users. Consequently, we propose reframing understandings of harm as adaptive, user- and community-centered processes, and outline design directions that shift auditing from retrospective evaluation toward infrastructures that support ongoing articulation of harm in interaction. Our work highlights the need for auditing and design practices that better reflect the pluralistic and evolving nature of harm understanding in personalized generative AI systems.

Many AI tutors leverage large language models (LLMs) today. Given that LLMs are opaque black boxes, robust evaluation and live experimentation to measure the impact of every change are essential. We pioneered AI-powered tutoring for K-12 with the launch of Khanmigo (Khan Academy, 2023). We describe the metrics we use to measure AI tutoring quality and student engagement as well as various experiments we have run. We highlight the changes that have moved our metrics, including models, prompting, personalization and agents.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have become powerful tools for supporting and automating complex human tasks. Despite their benefits, growing attention has been directed toward their environmental implications, primarily due to their high energy demands and associated carbon emissions. This concern is particularly relevant in light of the increasing deployment of large-scale models, especially Deep Learning (DL) architectures, which provide advanced predictive capabilities but require substantial computational resources. This paper presents a systematic review of research on Green AI, Green DL, and optimization techniques aimed at reducing the environmental impact of AI models. In addition, we examine and compare several carbon measurement tools for estimating emissions generated by AI algorithms. To complement the review, we conducted an empirical evaluation using a CPU-based experimental setup, in which six DL models were implemented for a multi-label classification task. The objective was to quantify and compare their overall carbon emissions and to determine which stages of the DL lifecycle contribute most significantly to the total footprint. The results show that the training phase is the primary source of emissions. Moreover, the findings reveal that increased architectural complexity does not systematically translate into proportional accuracy gains, highlighting the importance of carefully balancing predictive performance and environmental cost. These results reinforce the need to integrate sustainability considerations into model selection and AI system design.

The video game industry of 2024-2026 shows the deepest AAA-level contraction in its modern history alongside the largest-ever expansion of independent output. We examine AI's role in that divergence across four research questions, using public marketplace data, a title-level Steam catalog dataset cross-referenced with Steam's generative-AI disclosure records, and a fourteen-month log from an agentic AI game-production platform. RQ1 (barriers to entry): production planning, historically a salaried producer role at roughly $59 per hour, is generated in a mean of 5.1 minutes for $0.27-0.58 per plan. We operationalize "democratization" across seven dimensions and claim it for one, coordination cost, repriced by roughly four orders of magnitude; the regional dimension is argued from cost arithmetic, not measured. RQ2 (market acceptance): indie volume and unit sales expanded, AI-disclosed releases rose eightfold in eighteen months, professional sentiment collapsed across three surveys, and disclosed releases received catalog-typical reception (median 85.9 percent positive) in a verified subsample. RQ3 (a new wave): the moment resembles a third democratization wave after distribution (2008-2012) and construction (2013-2020); four pre-registered convergence tests align, and as production cost nears zero while mature-market demand contracts, the market shows preconditions of structural oversupply, forcing a new distribution paradigm. RQ4 (quality): the platform log measures plan generation, not shipped-game quality, so we compare quality signals for AI-disclosed versus non-disclosed titles; disclosure records AI use in production, not authorship. Releases doubled from 9,654 (2020) to over 20,000 (2025) while only about 300 titles grossed above $1 million, and participation in major markets fell below pre-pandemic levels; we close with implications for developers, educators, and platform design.

Artificial intelligence-based solutions offer new efficiency-increasing possibilities in many applications, including credit scoring. Yet, the increasing sophistication of machine-learning models in use raises concerns regarding many of their aspects, explainability notwithstanding. We review the relevant EU legal background and integrate this review with insights from technical sciences to interpret relevant legal provisions in the light of technological possibilities. We reject the narrow interpretations of the right to explanation and suggest the broad one, which encompasses not only a technical explanations but also a legal justification as the only one that allows to safeguard the creditors rights in an operative manner.

Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks. As generative AI applications move from pilot to production, manual harm identification and mitigation are becoming difficult to scale. Although many tools support model evaluation, adversarial testing, runtime guardrails, and observability, the tooling landscape remains fragmented. Tools are typically designed for specific engineering tasks and described in technical terms that do not align with governance frameworks or risk taxonomies, making it difficult to determine which tools address which risks and where critical gaps remain. This paper proposes a structured protocol to automate AI risk mitigation through a taxonomy-driven analysis of open-source LLM evaluation and security tools. We map the capabilities of 21 prominent open-source tools to the 32 subcategories of the extended MIT AI Risk Mitigation and Response Taxonomy. An LLM-assisted retrieval-augmented generation pipeline analyzes source code and documentation to extract capabilities for each taxonomy category. Reliability assessment yielded moderate agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.509) among three independent reviewers. The analysis reveals a highly skewed landscape in which tools cluster around technical and operational controls, while governance, legal and regulatory, and financial and market controls remain largely unaddressed. This motivates a layered risk-mitigation architecture combining tool-based controls with organizational and regulatory processes. The mapping protocol achieved an F1 score of 75.5% after majority voting. Overall, the study provides a practical mapping between enterprise AI risk categories and open-source mitigation capabilities, identifies where human oversight remains necessary, and presents a taxonomy-driven framework applicable to open-source and proprietary solutions.

Contribution: This paper presents a six-phase AI-assisted instructional design architecture based on the Curriculum as Code paradigm, integrating Generative AI with LaTeX and Python to automate the creation of reproducible, visually consistent, and technically precise materials for STEM education. Background: Creating customized instructional materials for active learning imposes a heavy workload on faculty. Standard presentation tools lack robust support for technical content, while current AI applications often hallucinate and fail to formalize the instructional authoring process, limiting their utility for rigorous academic design. Intended Outcomes: The framework aims to reduce preparation time while ensuring mathematical accuracy, adherence to institutional visual identity, and preservation of the instructor's tacit pedagogical knowledge through explicit rules. Application Design: The solution comprises a six-phase pipeline that replaces ad-hoc prompt engineering with a systematic workflow, utilizing text-based interfaces and code-driven generation (LaTeX/Beamer for slides, Python for figures), governed by pedagogical constraints, contextual calibrations, and automated review cycles. Findings: Validated over one year across 8 modules and 28 project contexts in a Project-Based Learning environment, the architecture significantly reduced instructor workload. Generated assets underwent independent peer review and were deployed by six different faculty members, confirming scalability beyond a single author. Based on over 600 voluntary student evaluations, materials achieved high quality ratings from 8.5 to 9.9/10. Results indicate high reproducibility, minimized hallucinations, and sustained pedagogical and visual fidelity, suggesting viability for broad STEM educational applications.

The arrival of generative AI as a cheap, widely accessible commercial service, and the tidal wave of AI-generated synthetic content it has unleashed, have provoked deep epistemic and social anxieties and raised difficult governance questions that policymakers are struggling to address. One approach that has attracted both enthusiasm from regulators and skepticism from researchers is digital watermarking. Signals embedded in a synthetically-generated piece of content indicating that it was AI-generated—possibly even identifying the specific systems that generated it—appear to offer a path toward mitigating risks of genAI that avoids the downsides of more interventionist strategies. But critics warn that watermarks may prove technically brittle, epistemically ambiguous, and politically ineffectual tools. In this paper, we explore the challenges and opportunities of using digital watermarking for AI governance, paying special attention to the specific problem of watermarking AI-generated text. We argue that such critiques often treat the problem of identifying synthetic content as an isolated forensic question. Instead, we propose reconceptualizing digital watermarks as tools for understanding the impacts of synthetic content on media ecosystems, rather than reliably identifying individual pieces of synthetic content. Such an “ecosystems approach” more effectively utilizes the features of watermarks. And while this approach raises its own governance challenges, we argue that they are more tractable than the challenges of using watermarks for digital forensics.

Modern AI systems depend on annotated data, but annotation is rarely treated as the act of measurement that it is. Instead, annotation quality is commonly reduced to agreement: if multiple annotators assign the same annotation to a data instance, the annotations are taken to be high-quality. Yet agreement does not establish whether annotations validly capture the underlying concept they are meant to represent. In this paper, we argue that data annotation should be understood as a measurement problem. Like other forms of measurement, annotation requires defining a concept, operationalizing it through an instrument, applying that instrument, and evaluating the reliability and validity of the resulting measurements. Drawing on a literature review of annotation quality research (N=132) and semi-structured interviews with annotation team members (N=10), we develop a framework for diagnosing and correcting annotation issues. First, we map key decision points across annotation processes - including task design, annotator management, quality assessment, quality improvement, and adjudication - that shape annotation outcomes. Second, we identify five distinct sources of annotation issues: error, ambiguity, impossibility, subjectivity, and annotator identity. Annotation problems that appear similar at the level of outcomes often require different process-level interventions based on their sources. Finally, we translate measurement theory into practical guidance for annotation teams, showing how assessments of reliability and validity can move beyond agreement alone. By reframing annotation as measurement, we offer a conceptual foundation for improving the quality of annotated data used in AI research and practice.

AI assistants are becoming a primary interface for local discovery, yet almost nothing is known about which venues they surface – especially in food and drink, where recommendations carry direct revenue consequences. We present the first census-denominated audit of AI venue recommendation: a complete enumeration of 4,776 cafes, restaurants, and bars across two bounded markets (Canggu and Ubud, Bali), against which we evaluate 2,208 search-grounded responses from four production AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity) to 96 persona-conditioned queries, collected over seven days under a pre-registered protocol. Because we observe the full market, we can measure what sampled audits cannot: 85.6% of venues were never recommended by any system – 72.6% even among established venues with fifty or more ratings. Visibility follows a two-margin structure. Entry into answers is associated with documentation: review volume (OR 1.64), an own website (OR 1.92), listed price information (OR 1.54), and third-party web mentions (OR 1.44) – while star rating is null at this margin (OR 0.89). Rank within answers reverses the pattern: among recommended venues, rating significantly predicts first position (OR 1.17). Presence in an open POI dataset (Foursquare), a folk-theorized visibility factor, shows no positive effect at either margin. Outright fabrication is rare (0.08% of mentions), but systems recommended permanently closed venues 93 times – staleness, not hallucination, is the practical failure mode. Cross-system agreement is low (top-20 Jaccard 0.33-0.54). A two-week test-retest shows cross-period answer similarity comparable to same-day rerun similarity: the churn is sampling stochasticity, not temporal drift. We release our protocol, registry construction method, and derived data.

Language-model agents increasingly act in populations, where the outcome that matters is collective: whether they align, split or fail to coordinate. Each acts not on the world but on a text description of it, a choice usually fixed in software. Using synchronization, the canonical probe of how interaction rules produce collective order, we show that this choice can decide the outcome. Agents on a circle chose to advance, stay or move back after reading the others' relative positions, in 507,112 valid responses across matched populations, controlled inputs and three model families. In GPT, numerical summaries aligned every matched population at both positive couplings, whereas histograms aligned none; Claude showed the reverse at the stronger coupling. Re-describing identical states shifted action probabilities in all three families, even between histograms carrying the same information. No single directional coefficient explained the outcome: state descriptions are part of the interaction rule that turns individual responses into collective order.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on corpora that contain expressions of human judgment about films, books, music, and more. Yet whether LLMs systematically reproduce evaluative hierarchies remains unclear. Prior research on cultural bias in LLMs suggests competing expectations: models may mirror the popularity signals of internet texts, or may reproduce forms of prestige embedded in critical discourse. We probe this question through a study of film evaluations with eight models from four families (Anthropic, OpenAI, Alibaba, and Mistral), using a 200-film benchmark partitioned into critically acclaimed, commercially successful, and dual-legitimacy (critical acclaim + commercial success) films. Across 20,000 pairwise forced-choice comparisons per model analyzed with Bradley–Terry estimation, we observe a consistent critical acclaim orientation with all models: critically acclaimed yet commercially obscure films are selected over commercially successful yet critically unrecognized ones. This pattern grows with model scale within each family. In addition, nested OLS regression analyses show that evaluative orientation, public visibility, and popular reception distinctly help explain preferences. Adjusting for public visibility reverses the models' preference for dual-legitimacy films over critical acclaim-only films, while additionally accounting for popular reception attenuates much of the disadvantage of films with commercial success only. Finally, evaluative and recommendation-oriented prompt framings produce divergent rankings, suggesting that critical acclaim orientation may manifest indirectly in real-world LLM deployments.

Educational short-video research spans disciplines, platforms and learning contexts, but the same label is applied to resources differing in function, activity, context and evaluation, complicating comparison and evidence synthesis. This study mapped the development, thematic organisation and operationalisation of educational short-video research. We analysed 2,169 records indexed in Web of Science and Scopus up to 11 June 2026 using bibliometric analysis, non-negative matrix factorisation topic modelling and structured content analysis. Publication output increased sharply from the mid-2010s but remained dispersed across outlets. Among 16 first-level topics, Skill Development in Educational Contexts was the largest, forming the structural core of the field, while topic overlap was predominantly pairwise. Video-Based Health Interventions for Attitude Change and Cognitive Load and Engagement in Instructional Video Design combined positive recent growth with comparatively high citation visibility, whereas Social Media Engagement Strategies for Education emerged as a rapidly growing direction. Knowledge/Achievement and Engagement/Motivation were the most widely represented outcome domains, and experimental and synthesis designs were more common among identifiable records in health-related topics. Indexed descriptions most often foregrounded intended users, educational uses, learning content, and interactivity. A representative duration was available for 511 records, but no consistently applied numerical threshold was evident. These findings support a working definition of educational short videos as discrete multimedia messages combining words and visuals and designed or used to promote learning. Shortness should be interpreted relative to educational purpose, content unit and surrounding activity rather than duration alone.

We propose Zero-phase Component Analysis (ZCA) whitening as a geometric pre-processing step for the Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT). WEAT is a bias measurement method widely used in both computational social science and AI fairness research. It relies on cosine similarity as a measure of semantic association, which assumes that the embedding space is approximately isotropic. However, prior work has reported that many widely used language models do not satisfy this assumption, raising concerns about the reliability of bias measurements. ZCA whitening transforms the covariance of the embedding space into the identity matrix while minimizing perturbation to the original vectors. This transformation restores the isotropy condition on which WEAT relies. We evaluate our approach on ten standard WEAT test suites and seven models spanning three architectural families, yielding 70 model-task combinations. The results show that ZCA whitening substantially reduces the anisotropy of the embedding spaces across all models. Particularly for highly anisotropic models, we further observe improvements on standard semantic similarity benchmarks, indicating that the calibrated space better captures semantic associations. After calibration, over 30% of WEAT results change significance status, and effect sizes shift in both directions depending on bias category. These shifts suggest that uncalibrated measurements may both overestimate and underestimate the associations encoded in the embedding space. These findings indicate that previously reported bias measurements in anisotropic embedding spaces should be interpreted with caution and may benefit from re-evaluation with calibrated methods. Our approach contributes to restoring the measurement foundation of WEAT across both computational social science and AI fairness research.

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in music has expanded research from generation and information retrieval to education, health, and governance. Yet this growth does not necessarily imply balanced research attention. Where is research attention directed across diverse music tasks, and how can such imbalance be systematically measured? Existing studies examine AI music from separate technical, application-specific, or bibliometric perspectives, but lack a systematic framework for measuring field-level imbalance. To address this gap, we analyze 6,839 AI music publications from 2015 to April 2026 using a joint taxonomy of 12 application categories and 11 technical method families. We propose the Research Attention Profile, comprising four indicators of technical investment, method allocation, methodological diversity, and frontier-method adoption lag. Results show that technical support is concentrated in scalable, content-oriented tasks, while education, health, and governance remain under-supported. Generation adopts frontier methods after only 0.33 years on average, compared with 4.33 years for education and 5.00 years for health. These findings reveal uneven methodological development and support a more socially responsive AI music research agenda.

The harms in which AI is implicated range in nature and scope from unsafe user interactions through to the societal-wide consequences of AI adoption. Classification of the diverse risks of AI is foundational to AI governance: regulators, technology firms, and policymakers need structured accounts of risk upon which to act. Researchers and practitioners have accordingly developed many Sociotechnical Outcome Taxonomies (SOT). This paper presents an empirical study of SOT development and use, drawing on 25 interviews with researchers and practitioners across industry, academia, civil society, and government. We find SOT are weakly integrated into AI governance processes, and identify two features of SOT design and use that explain why. First, the design choices through which SOT produce structured representations of the complex problem space of AI risks tend to be invisible to downstream taxonomy users. Those users treat the resulting categories as exhaustive accounts of risk rather than as interpretive aids. Second, SOT typically enumerate harms without linking them to decision points or actors implicated in their occurrence, leaving accountability difficult to assign. We close with design recommendations for SOT developers and users, and argue realising the potential of SOT requires governance infrastructure that does not yet exist.

Prior research has established the importance of student instructor preferences and identified various influencing factors. However, the dynamics of how student instructor preferences develop and change are less well understood, due to the limitations of common course structures and reliance on one-time measurements. To bridge this gap, we utilize data from a novel learning platform that provides students with access to instructional content created by multiple instructors. This platform enables the quantification of preference emergence and evolution throughout an entire semester, as students repeatedly select content from different instructors. Examining both initial and final student instructor preferences suggests that preference is a dynamic construct continually shaped by experiences. Furthermore, our analysis of the associations between preferences and student characteristics reveals a nuanced picture: while student attributes did not significantly correlate with initial preferences, substantial differences emerged in final preferences across genders and self-reported prior programming experience. This analysis contributes to the existing body of knowledge by expanding our understanding of student instructor preferences and student-instructor relationships in computer science education. We also provide practical insights that institutions and instructors can draw on when multiple instructors collaborate on a course.

Office hour utilization in computer science courses can spike near deadlines, producing long wait times, frustrated students, and overworked staff. To address this problem, a large CS1 course implemented a split deadlines policy. Students were randomly divided into two groups with staggered release and due dates. Each group had the same amount of time to complete assignments, but the number of students with each due date was reduced by half. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of this policy. We measure office hour utilization and staff efficiency near deadlines, examine the policy's impact on student performance, and investigate student perception of the policy's fairness and effectiveness. Overall we found that the split deadline policy increased office hour efficiency, resulted in no significant difference in performance between groups, and was considered fair and effective by most students. Our experience report includes reflections and student feedback indicating how to implement and further improve similar policies.