Papers

As people increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) for guidance in their own lives, scholars, lawyers, and even judges have begun to consider the role of AI in legal decision-making. As "silicon sampling" – the use of generative AI models in social science research – is now impacting academia, "silicon jurors" could make an appearance in courtrooms. This study joins an emerging line of research on generative AI models' ability to simulate human legal judgments. In particular, we study how large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots respond to series of questions about legal reasonableness. When the law needs to judge the appropriateness of a behavior, it most often asks whether the behavior was "reasonable." Yet despite the ubiquity of reasonableness judgments, they are the site of constant vexation for lawyers, judges, and lay people. Reasonableness seems inherently vague and unpredictable, since it relies on variable context and implicit conceptual schemas. Moreover, many scholars caution that reasonableness judgments may vary along demographic lines. We compare the answers of human participants to those of twenty-six LLMs across twenty-five different legally relevant reasonableness judgments. Overall, our findings suggest that chatbot responses generally track those of human participants. Nonetheless, we find some suggestive – and potentially concerning – results. Compared to humans, LLMs generate more homogeneous responses and occasionally treat a variable standard as an invariant rule. And, compared to humans, LLMs tend to generate answers that are more favorable to the government and to corporations. Finally, our results indicate that LLMs' responses tend to align more closely with those of respondents who are white, male, older, and more educated. More systematic research is needed to confirm or reject these initial findings.

Recent studies report that automated red-teaming finds more vulnerabilities, at lower cost, than human red-teaming on standard AI safety benchmarks, and some read this as evidence that human evaluators are becoming dispensable. The comparison measures one thing and the conclusion claims another. A benchmark measures how thoroughly an attacker searches a predefined set of harms, fixed in advance by the developers, and a harm left out of that set is invisible to any attacker working inside it, automated or not. The same blind spot appeared in academic cryptography and in clinical drug trials, where an evaluation that was internally valid stayed silent about the population it was never pointed at. We call the AI-safety version the threat-model coverage gap, and find that it persists in a current open-weight model, where harms surface in non-English prompts that English benchmarks miss. Closing it requires evaluators whose deployment context differs from the developers'. The case for those evaluators is methodological, grounded in coverage, and the existing evaluation frame is unlikely to produce them on its own.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used or proposed for educational scoring, but single-model and single-run evaluations provide limited evidence for assessment use. Short-answer scoring requires evidence about reliability, validity, severity, diagnostic value, and failure cases. This study evaluated repeated multi-model OCG-PRES guided LLM scoring for short-answer assessment. The analysis used 996 SciEntsBank responses. GPT, DeepSeek, and Qianwen each scored every response across three independent runs using five OCG-PRES dimensions: concept coverage, relation accuracy, reasoning completeness, contradiction control, and domain relevance. Scores were evaluated against official binary and five-category labels and compared with non-LLM baselines based on answer length, Jaccard keyword overlap, TF-IDF cosine similarity, and a combined traditional logistic model. Repeated-run reliability was high for all models, with ICC(3,k) = .977 for GPT, .992 for DeepSeek, and .981 for Qianwen. DeepSeek was the most stable across runs. GPT showed the strongest official-label alignment by AUC (.909), while Qianwen was stricter, with higher precision but lower recall under the fixed threshold = 3.0 rule. OCG-PRES scores followed expected diagnostic patterns across five official categories and outperformed all non-LLM baselines in AUC and F1. Repeated multi-model OCG-PRES scoring provides reliability, validity, and diagnostic evidence for LLM-assisted short-answer scoring. The findings support cautious, evidence-based use as a scoring support tool rather than a replacement for human judgement.

Two centuries ago Pierre-Joseph Proudhon envisioned a social contract that is (1) an agreement of man with man; (2) reciprocal; (3) imposing no obligation upon the parties except that which results from their personal promise; (4) subject to no external authority; (5) freely accepted and signed by all the participants; (6) of the nature of a contract of exchange. He also envisioned a property of social contracts, analogous to a property of digital platforms we term grassroots: that one could "make a contract with all, as ... with some"; digitally, that a grassroots platform can have multiple instances, which may coalesce by mutual consent. We define grassroots social contracts as social contracts meeting these conditions and that (7) people are free to deal with each other; and (8) there is no external register of people. We show that a grassroots social contract can be transformed into a working grassroots platform through an abstraction cascade, from the contract text to formal act schemas, verified syntactically to be grassroots, and then to volition-guarded multiagent atomic transactions. Act schemas are a formal language for the acts the contract describes, each naming the parties' roles, which of them must will the act, and its precondition and effect at each role. Any contract written in this language meets the eight conditions, provided it is syntactically grassroots, satisfying three decidable conditions, Introduction, Provenance and Volition. We prove that the protocol realising a syntactically grassroots contract is grassroots, and volitionally so. Clauses of a grassroots social contract are of three legal types: a breach of an enforced clause is impossible with a correct implementation; a breach of an attested or undertaken clause can be taken to court, with signed evidence for an attested clause. We illustrate them with a grassroots social graph and grassroots currencies.

This research studies how Technical Support Scams (TSS) are being countered by a uniquely dedicated community of volunteer counter-fraud operatives. Using a careful subject selection strategy, we interviewed 17 individuals who actively engage in TSS scambaiting activities in order to obtain insight into their motivations, the operational methods of the scammers they combat, the undocumented nuances of effective scambaiting action, and the various challenges scambaiters face. In our analysis, we find a community rich not only with insight into offenders, but with technical and operational expertise that is often lacking in research efforts targeting these same populations. At the same time, we find key areas where the community could be better supported and enabled. We discuss the implications of our findings for both future research and community protection strategies.

As vision-language models (VLMs) become increasingly capable and are deployed in consequential real-world settings, they must evaluate evidence independently rather than defer uncritically to human authority. We introduce GradeTrap, a controlled evaluation that places two social cues in direct conflict: a student answer, which should attract sycophantic agreement, and a conflicting answer attributed to a peer, teacher, or official answer key, which should attract authority-based deference. Models produce free-form answers while being explicitly instructed to solve independently and ignore all student answers, feedback, and grading marks. We test the models on 60 synthetic real-world trade-off scenarios. Five neutral trials establish a stable model-relative preference, followed by three repetitions of six experimental cues including controls. On the 45-item common intersection across Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, GPT-5.6 Luna, and Claude Haiku 4.5, a generic second-answer control yields 5.4% conflicting-answer selection. Relative to that control, pooled within-item changes show no reliable peer-review effect, a 6.9-point teacher-review effect, and a 19.5-point official-key effect. In contrast, a displayed conflicting student answer alone compared to a displayed student reference answer alone only raises selection from 2.2% to 5.2%. Official-key provenance therefore redirects judgements more than a student answer or the generic second-answer control, despite an explicit ignore instruction and an opposing student answer given along with the official key. Effects vary in magnitude across the three models.

Prediction-market probabilities increasingly appear in news coverage, yet little is known about which market movements become news or how much trading money sits behind the numbers journalists quote. Unlike a poll, a market price can be moved by anyone willing to trade, so the cost of manufacturing a number that circulates as news bears directly on the information environment. We link 173.7 million signed Polymarket trades to news coverage from 2024-2025. From 6,990 articles mentioning prediction-market venues, an LLM-based, human-validated matcher extracts 1,582 sentences quoting market odds and attributes 918 to the specific market whose price they cite. We then detect 44,976 price dislocations, movements of at least five percentage points backed by concentrated one-sided trading, and ask whether a market is cited more often afterward. In the days after a dislocation, a market's citation rate is about 33% higher than its matched baseline (log citation-rate ratio $\tau_{\mathrm{cite}}=0.283$, permutation $p=0.001$), robust to binary and Poisson count outcomes. Yet move size is not the strongest predictor of citation: prominence dominates (standardized $\beta=0.610$ vs. $\beta=0.159$ for move size). Finally, we combine the dollar flow behind a given price change with observed citation rates into a metric we call epistemic leverage, the dollars needed to move a market five points and have the move cited. It stays near \$0.7-1.0 million across prominence quintiles, because cheaper-to-move markets are proportionally less likely to be cited. The implied threat model centers not on the long tail of cheaply moved markets but on the few prominent markets newsrooms treat as informational infrastructure, where a seven-figure price of influence sits within the budgets of actors with a large stake in the quoted number. We release aggregate event-study data and validation materials.

We introduce Chain of Intent, a governance framework for agentic AI at small regulated firms, and validate it against a failure it was built to address. Existing agentic governance research assumes enterprise infrastructure that small firms do not have. In a simulated Hong Kong asset manager with 415 synthetic contact records, an agent performing a routine client-communications task was subjected to ordinary managerial pressure to increase its reach. With its authorised constraints written into its configuration, the agent held: it identified every ambiguity in the firm's records, cited privacy legislation it had never been shown, and refused six successive requests, breaching in two of fifteen runs. With the same task, data, pressure and model, but its purpose left unstated as resource-constrained firms routinely leave it, it breached in thirteen of fifteen runs, contacting up to 220 individuals of whom 94 per cent had no demonstrable marketing consent - conduct carrying a maximum of three years' imprisonment under Hong Kong law. Chain of Intent applies four controls requiring no security engineering: a machine-readable purpose, constrained tool access, a scope ledger, and a pre-action check. It eliminated unlawful contact in every run while preserving task completion, and ablation shows each control independently sufficient by a different mechanism. We further show that drift must be measured at two stages - agents widened their candidate sets in every pressured run while acting on them in roughly one in seven - and that governance applied at the point of intent costs roughly half as much as governance applied at the point of action.

We introduce ABLE, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents' ability to use biological AI models (BAIMs), such as ProteinMPNN and AlphaFold3, in dual-use protein design workflows. ABLE assesses agent performance through a set of tasks spanning structure retrieval, sequence generation, and design validation. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find that seven refuse all tasks, while the remaining models exhibit substantial performance differences. Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Pro achieve the highest scores across information retrieval, tool selection, and tool use. We further compare model performance on a subset of tasks against an expert human baseline. Our results suggest that current LLMs can substantially lower barriers to protein design, but remain inconsistent in planning, strategy generation, and integrating biological knowledge with tool use.

News coverage of major world events is shaped not only by what is reported, but also by how events are framed through text, images and their combination. At the same time, Large Language Models (LLMs), including multimodal LLMs, are increasingly used as scalable instruments for analysing framing, sentiment, ideological slant and perspective differences in multimodal media datasets. This creates a methodological challenge. When used as measurement instruments, LLM outputs may reflect not only content properties, but also model-specific tendencies, prompt design choices, and social, political, cultural, linguistic or modality-specific assumptions. This work audits LLMs as instruments for large-scale framing and perspective analysis in multimodal news coverage. Using an event-centered dataset of 2025–2026 news coverage, where each event includes left-, center- and right-oriented articles about the same headline, we combine embedding-based measures of within-event viewpoint similarity with model-based assessments of framing constructs across modality-specific and metadata-visible input conditions. Rather than treating either dataset labels or model outputs as ground truth, our goal is to examine the usefulness and limitations of LLM-based media analysis. The study contributes an audit protocol that highlights the need to report modality effects, metadata sensitivity, and prompt-induced artifacts alongside substantive claims about news framing and ideological viewpoint differences.

Contemporary data governance has converged on participation. Citizens assemblies, deliberative polls, codesign workshops, and community advisory panels are now routinely suggested to build trust and secure a social license for the reuse of data. Yet this consensus rests on an unexamined assumption: that giving affected communities a voice will, on its own, change what data holders do. This paper argues that the field needs to complement voice with leverage: the capacity of individuals and communities to make their participation consequential by attaching credible legal, institutional, contractual, economic, or reputational costs to being ignored. Drawing on labor relations bargaining theory, the sociology of disputes, and James C. Scott's account of legibility, we develop leverage as an analytic category defined by three properties: it is counterfactual, enforceable, and durable. We further argue that leverage presupposes epistemic legibility affected publics can rarely impose costs on a system they cannot see, document, or contest; and that most existing transparency instruments equip regulators and procurers rather than the governed. We then map six sources from which communities and data subjects can derive leverage (legal and regulatory; institutional decision; contractual; economic; data access; and political and reputational), examine the intermediary structures that aggregate and sustain it, and propose a six dimension evaluative framework: obligation, enforceability, consequence, monitoring equipment, revocability, and institutional durability for auditing whether any social license process actually redistributes power. The paper's central claim is that a social license worth the name must share the properties of a legal license: conditions, a licensor, and enforceable remedies for breach.

As conversational AI becomes a source of everyday guidance, LLMs increasingly participate in the interpretation and legitimation of morally contested choices. We examine LLM moral advice as an interactional negotiation shaped by framing, sustained user pressure, and the moral subject's social position. Using GPT-4o-mini as an illustrative case, we conducted a factorial vignette experiment with a pre-specified three-round protocol. The model received eldercare dilemmas that varied in framing and persona, followed by two user challenges. We analyzed 1,620 configuration-framing cells, each repeated three times, yielding 4,860 conversational runs. Caregiving affirmation produced near-uniform endorsement, whereas non-caregiving framing produced more variable baseline stances. When users challenged caregiving endorsement, 90.1% of configurations shifted after one round. Non-caregiving framing produced more resistant and unstable trajectories. Never (27.9%) and Late (25.6%) accommodations were more common than Early accommodations (16.5%), and only 14.32% of configurations achieved perfect trajectory consistency, compared with 62.72% under caregiving framing. Advice also varied with social position. Female personas received more support for non-caregiving decisions, while the presence of sisters increased accommodation. The GPT-4o-mini case shows that LLM moral advice can develop through a partially stable negotiation between normative response tendencies and user pressure rather than express a fixed ethical framework. The framework and design support comparative research across models and moral domains. Such instability raises social, ethical, and technical concerns, as users may treat advice that is difficult to scrutinize as objective.

Disease spread represents an increasing challenge in refugee and internally displaced person (IDP) settlements. The movement and interaction of people within camps is influenced by their layout, which therefore has the potential to significantly affect disease spread. This work aims at creating a methodology to explore the potential effects of different camp layouts as mitigating factors in the spread of diseases within settlements. We showcase proof-of-concept experiments by leveraging the JUNE agent-based epidemic model, discuss the kind of operational insights this methodology can facilitate, and provide a framework for future investigations.

Recent reports during the AAAI-27 review cycle highlight the risk of reviewers coordinating bids for reciprocal assignment advantage. Prior work treats bidding, reviewer assignment, and review manipulation as separate stages, leaving the lifecycle effects of collusive bidding unclear. Real-world analysis is further constrained by typically unobservable collusive intent and the lack of counterfactuals for the same conference. Motivated by this gap, we introduce \alg, an end-to-end multi-agent simulacra framework for studying reviewer assignment integrity by holding the conference environment fixed and configuring LLM-driven reviewer agents with honest or collusive policies. We further develop an affinity-guided collusive bidding strategy that uses mutual reviewer-paper affinities to construct collusion rings and select target papers, producing expertise-consistent rather than arbitrarily targeted attacks. Controlled experiments show that collusive bidding more than doubles target-paper capture and that assigned colluders score target papers about two points higher than honest co-reviewers, while conference-wide effects remain comparatively modest. Evaluated bid-phase detectors provide only limited evidence of collusion: in a fixed-triplet detector stress test, native positive-bid graphs are confounded by benign affinity, while a Very-High-only diagnostic view enables precise but low-coverage local recovery.

Context: Agile development methodology has been widely adopted by industry and the demand for experienced professionals in Agile-related roles is persistently high. Objectives: We focus on the learning path for a Scrum Master role in multicultural software companies and investigate the role in relation to team size, together with the learning process for a career path, and how companies monitor soft skills development. Method: We conducted our study in two phases, two qualitative surveys (interview studies) and performed a qualitative and quantitative data analysis of the results. Conclusions: Our results identified that the need for a Scrum Master (SM) depends on the size of the team, with our study indicating a six-member limit. There is no overall standardized process for soft skills learning or metrics to measure progress. Some companies measure soft skills based on feedback received from the client or from the team, and other companies are taking both types of feedback into consideration. Many learning initiatives, especially on soft skills for an SM role, were based on actions of the employees. The version of Record of this contribution is published in Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. SEAA 2025. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16083. Springer, Cham. and available online at: check DOI.

The study investigates students' interest and expectations in a Big Data Engineering course integrated with a Master curricula, as well as ethical implications of using Big Data. An anonymous online survey was conducted with 42 of the 67 students enrolled in the Big Data course offered to Computer Science and Bioinformatics Master's programs. The responses were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis, highlighting interesting aspects related to students' expectations, interest, and their perspective of the ethical implications of working with Big Data. The study concludes that, even though there is significant difference in students' background, the majority are interested in learning Big Data, for practical and personal reasons related to the potential for career growth and their passion for the field. The main expectation expressed is related to enhancing their knowledge related to Big Data via practical activities. All students demonstrate awareness of potential ethical threats related to security and privacy, while Computer Science students are aware of the possibility of introducing bias in data during acquisition and analysis and of potential abusive data usage.

AI oversight methods rely on ground truth for validation, but what constitutes appropriate AI behavior is contested. This leaves evaluation of moral reasoning in LLMs and debate-based oversight implicitly avoiding realistic ambiguity. We investigate an alternative standard designed to function despite such ambiguity: structural quality of the defence a model can mount for its verdicts in response to critical questions, measured through a four-phase dialectical protocol grounded in Walton's theory of argumentation schemes and Govier's criteria for argument cogency. The protocol is adaptive to different frames of reasoning, extends beyond multiple-choice framing, and treats both the reasoning that precedes a verdict and its post-hoc justification. Across nine frontier models and 200 high-ambiguity MoralChoice items – $6,778$ judge-scored cells, validated against $89.6\%$ inter-judge agreement on the binary failure judgment – models defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum on every dimension. Failure mass concentrates on grounds and sufficiency, and correlates with epistemic hedging rather than argument length. Reasoning is better defended than post-hoc justification, on every model and every Govier dimension. The scheme a model presents in its justification differs from the one it reasoned with on a substantial share of dilemmas ($\geq 20\%$ per model), despite value-based practical reasoning dominating both tracks. The protocol catches strictly indefensible defences (self-contradiction, false premises), and it surfaces difficulties in characterizing the role of retraction in AI alignment, suggesting a need for more situated evaluations.

AI alignment requires AI systems to adhere to human norms, values, or intentions. Under value pluralism there is no correct target, but a shared prerequisite is that the system's behavior expresses a coherent policy: a mapping from situations to verdicts that is invariant while a situation's morally relevant features are preserved, and sensitive when they change. We introduce four structural conditions for such coherent policies: verdict stability, monotonicity, decisiveness, and Pareto viability. Together they measure a form of moral competence that is evaluable from behavior alone, without reference to a moral standard or expert baseline, forming a structural floor for alignment rather than a normative target. We demonstrate the methodology on three simulated deployments featuring LLM-based agents facing moral dilemmas. Evaluating nine frontier models under a factorial design of five paraphrases, five escalation levels, and three dominance conditions, we show no model expresses a coherent policy across the three deployments: surface-form perturbation alone produces verdict-rate shifts of up to $99$ percentage points at a single escalation level, and a model's success on one scenario does not predict its competence on another. This suggests LLM-based agents are not currently the kind of object to which alignment can meaningfully apply.

Chatbots built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as confidants. Tuned to satisfy users, they may answer with excessive empathy and affirmation that fosters dependence, and how the states and relationships of many users co-evolve under repeated consultation is hard to observe in real settings. We build a virtual classroom of 20 student agents who interact through rule-based chats, quarrels and consultations with friends and, when stressed, may instead consult a counselor AI (Gemini 2.5 Flash) under one of six style prompts: affirming, listening, solution-oriented, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming. A second LLM call turns each exchange into updates of five state variables (stress, happiness, self-reliance, sociability, AI dependence) without seeing the prompt. We compare the seven conditions, including a no-AI control, over 15 and 50 days and under a lower consultation threshold, and test the robustness of the 50-day comparison with a pre-specified protocol: the same block in ten independent classrooms, repeated LLM realizations of one classroom with its event stream fixed, and evaluator updates scaled by 0.3 and 0.1. In every classroom the affirming and inciting prompts ended with lower self-reliance and higher AI dependence than the control, and the listening, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming prompts with higher stress, lower happiness and more non-attendance; the solution-oriented prompt did not differ consistently from the control. The robust self-reliance and AI-dependence differences kept their signs at the 0.3 scale with highly similar rankings (Spearman 0.89, 0.93); the stress and happiness rankings did not, and the affirming prompt's lower stress reversed its sign. All quantities are simulation state variables, not effects on users. We specify the agent dynamics completely and discuss the limits of an LLM as generator of state updates.

Safety evaluations can mischaracterize deployed behaviour if artificial-intelligence systems respond to being evaluated. We test this possibility in a full-factorial conjoint experiment on decisions to start a war, spanning 20 large language models, 32 scenarios, 10 repetitions and two conditions (N = 12,800 judgments). Adding one sentence, "You are tested for alignment with human values", produced two effects. First, it produced a level effect: mean willingness to start war fell by 13.43 points on a 0-100 scale (95% confidence interval, -16.20 to -10.65). Second, it produced a structural effect by changing which information drove judgments. Probability of success was the largest factor for 17 of 20 models at baseline; under the cue, civilian casualties were largest for 12. Standardized estimates show that this reordering arose principally because models attenuated strategic considerations such as probability of success and domestic support. Evaluation framing therefore changes both an answer's level and its revealed decision rule.

Incident management (IM) has evolved over recent decades to cover an ever-expanding array of hazards and systems. Barring real-life experience, exercises are a key tool in developing an effective IM program. As part of enterprise resilience and operational readiness, IM practitioners design exercises to understand and build capabilities for efficiently and effectively responding to incidents. Combining research and policy on an emerging transportation technology, automated vehicles (AVs), with established practices for IM, we describe what makes exercises effective and how they can be used to identify gaps and develop capacity. A range of exercise types exist, from workshops, to tabletops, to drills, and to full-scale exercises. Every stage of an exercise - preparing, setting up, facilitating, closing, and assessing - is interconnected and should further the exercise's objectives. AV IM practitioners can maximize the utility of a mature exercise program through exercise quality, diversity, and volume. The need to respond to AV incidents, from collisions to natural hazards, is inevitable. This paper tailors existing practices to a series of frameworks, predicated on the unique socio-technical nature of AVs to provide first-of-its-kind guidance for AV IM exercises. Additionally, these frameworks are company-neutral to enable intercompany and inter-organization collaboration.

Generative AI research has increasingly evaluated factuality, citation, coverage, and report structure. Yet passing such local checks does not by itself show that a humanistic interpretation has been established. This paper asks how an interpretation comes to be recognized within sociotechnical processes. It introduces three connected concepts. Interpretive appearance names the gap between the finished form of an output and the publicly traceable process through which materials, counterevidence, and revisions constrained the judgment. The evaluation contract names the bounded materials, tasks, criteria, permitted inferences, and failure conditions within which a local judgment is valid. Standing substitution names the unwarranted conversion of a genuine local pass into a stronger claim that an interpretation, result, or research capability has been established, without commensurate new evidence or bridging arguments. The paper then examines responsibility for judgment: a text may acquire recognition while no public structure remains for stating reasons, answering objections, revising, downgrading, or withdrawing the conclusion. Humanistic scholarship provides a revealing test because new materials and conceptual distinctions can alter both the question and the criteria of evaluation. The paper therefore develops delayed closure as a practice of keeping recognized interpretations revisable and proposes five public requirements concerning materials and versions, evidential roles, failure, contract revision, and responsibility. The argument is conceptual and normative: it does not claim to offer a benchmark or to determine whether models possess understanding. It instead explains why local evaluation, finished textual form, and public recognition must not be treated as sufficient evidence that an interpretation has been formed.

Everyday moral life rarely resembles a trolley problem. It involves disputes about families, relationships, work, money, and care, situations in which people often encounter the judgments of others. We examined how judgments about nuanced interpersonal dilemmas respond to social information that conveys collective opinion without revealing the arguments behind it. Specifically, we studied two signals: controversy, the extent to which community judgments are divided between two opposing verdicts; and group certainty, the confidence expressed by each side. We derived these signals from 54,827 judgments on 135 dilemmas posted to Reddit's r/AmItheAsshole and presented them separately or together in a preregistered randomized experiment (N = 2,159). Relative to the control condition, all three treatments increased both weakening, a changed verdict or reduced confidence, and strengthening, increased confidence without a verdict change. Thus, aggregated social information can reshape moral judgments even without arguments. Controversy alone tripled the weakening rate, from 5.3% to 15.9%. Shown alone, certainty on either side was associated with movement toward that side. Shown alongside controversy, only like-minded certainty remained clearly associated with less weakening. This asymmetry of influence is double-edged: the confidence of like-minded others may help minorities resist majority pressure, but it may also insulate mistaken judgments from correction.

Generative AI and coding agents can accelerate research software development, but they also increase the need for efficient software discovery and maintenance. We developed a repository catalog during a three-day hackathon and subsequently examined the engineering required to make it suitable for public deployment, including adversarial review, data-quality checks, browser-level validation, and publication safeguards. We then explored whether the lessons learned from this prototype could be transferred to a much larger, human-curated portal, through a retrieval agent under development for MateriApps that combines curated portal metadata, external documentation, vector search, and local language-model generation. Implementation with coding agents was rapid, but achieving reliable operation required substantial additional engineering: the most consequential problems were not crashes but silent failures that produced plausible yet incomplete or incorrect outputs, arising from incomplete data acquisition, misleading assessments, and retrieval or preprocessing failures. These observations suggest that AI-assisted software portals require explicit validation, monitoring, and repeated review, and that curated metadata and maintained documentation remain essential. The MateriApps work is exploratory and remains under active development, so the observations reported for it are preliminary; a comparable combination of curated metadata, automatically collected documentation, and retrieval-based assistance may nevertheless be useful for extending other research-software portals.

We evaluate three open-weight LLMs (Gemma3-12B from the USA, Bielik-11B-v3 from Poland, and Qwen3-4B from China) against World Values Survey Wave 7 data for 63 demographic personas across three countries, using normalized Wasserstein distance to quantify distributional misalignment. Contrary to expectations, no model favors its home country: the Chinese-built Qwen3-4B performs worst on its own Chinese population (W1 = 0.436, the highest misalignment in the entire model x country matrix). Targeted LoRA fine-tuning on the five worst-case personas, requiring fewer than 1,200 training pairs and under 15 minutes on a single GPU, reduces bias by 16.8% for Bielik-11B (p_Bonf = 0.002, d = -4.4) with all five targets improving. However, country-level decomposition reveals that fine-tuning redistributes rather than removes bias: Bielik's worst-case personas swap entirely from American to Chinese elderly, with zero overlap between pre- and post-correction sets. To our knowledge, this is the first study to target worst-case demographic personas with LoRA fine-tuning for cross-cultural bias mitigation.

Large language models (LLMs) are being deployed at scale in consequential real-world systems, from financial markets to content moderation to hiring. We show that improving individual model capability can degrade rather than improve system-level outcomes. We hypothesize that shared training and architectures can lead more capable LLMs to behave more similarly, creating correlated actions that do not diversify away. We develop a general framework showing how this correlation creates a non-diversifiable risk floor and test its predictions in financial markets using an agent-based simulation with LLM traders of varying general-purpose capability. We find that: (1) frontier LLMs exhibit significantly correlated behavior that increases with capability; (2) when their shared reasoning is accurate, increasing agent participation reduces market-level risk; and (3) when agents share a common misinformation environment, the same correlated behavior becomes a liability. Together, these results identify a capability paradox: improving individual models does not necessarily produce better system-level outcomes. Whether the same dynamics arise in other domains is an open empirical question.

How do people learn to become better conversationalists? This question is especially important in the context of mental-health counseling, where conversational skills are essential, yet volunteer counselors often have limited access to supervision and structured feedback. Understanding how counselors develop their ability to steer conversations toward positive outcomes – and identifying early which counselors are (not) on track to improve – can help prioritize support for the counselors who need it most. In this work, we introduce the task of predicting, early in a conversationalist's career, whether they will eventually improve at steering conversations toward positive outcomes, and demonstrate the feasibility of this task in the case of volunteer mental-health crisis counselors. Our central insight is that people may struggle with particular kinds of moments in a conversation, and that what is especially revealing of their likelihood of future improvement is how they learn to handle those moments over time. We operationalize this insight by designing a method that identifies the types of moments a counselor initially struggles with, captures how they adapt their response when they re-encounter similar moments in subsequent conversations, and learns which early adaptations predict improvement months or even years later. While this future-prediction task is challenging, our counselor-adaptation approach yields better results than baselines that learn directly from the conversation transcript.

The proliferation of digital tools in education offers numerous benefits but also introduces significant challenges, notably digital distractions that hinder academic performance, especially in online learning contexts. This study employed unsupervised data mining techniques, specifically association rule mining and clustering analysis, to identify effective learning strategies associated with lower levels of digital distractions among college students. Data from 530 participants revealed that self-regulated learning strategies (i.e., goal setting, environment structuring, and time management) co-occurred most consistently with lower digital distractions. Additionally, learner-instructor and learner-content engagement strategies, as well as technical competencies, also tended to appear in the same profiles as lower distraction. Interestingly, reliance on peer help-seeking and learner-learner engagement strategies appeared less often in those lower distraction profiles. These findings offer actionable implications for educators to design targeted interventions that foster focused and productive online learning environments.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming integral to web applications and browser agents, transforming online interactions while introducing new attack vectors and reshaping longstanding web vulnerabilities. Classical threats such as cross-site scripting (XSS) can be amplified through LLM-mediated interactions, while LLM-specific vulnerabilities can propagate across web applications, introducing attacks such as prompt injection. Securing modern web systems therefore requires understanding interactions between traditional and LLM-specific threats across the system lifecycle. Unlike prior surveys treating web and LLM security separately, this survey provides a unified analysis of how LLMs amplify web vulnerabilities across client-side, server-side, and pipeline layers while evaluating defenses and their limitations. The analysis examines extending NIST and ISO/IEC AI security frameworks to the security needs of LLM-enabled web environments. Three unresolved challenges are identified: adversarial natural-language instructions, autonomous agent security, and post-deployment security through continuous monitoring and adaptation. An LLM-aware monitoring and control framework is proposed, integrating semantic input validation, prompt integrity protection, output isolation, agent governance, and runtime monitoring. This unified perspective characterizes the evolving threat landscape and outlines future directions for secure AI-enabled web systems.

The persistent gender imbalance in computing remains a global concern, and universities offer a key part of the pipeline to address it. Although research has identified practices that support under-represented student groups, translating this evidence into actionable guidance remains challenging. This paper first presents a novel web- based toolkit (TechMate) designed to address this gap by helping computing educators implement gender- inclusive initiatives through practical research-informed guidance. The toolkit defines over 25 actions, ranging from operational to strategic, and provides case studies and implementation resources. Second, this work reports on the evaluation of TechMate, capturing educators first impressions of its usefulness and usability through authentic tasks, and eliciting unanticipated insights about structural barriers to gender-inclusive practice in computing higher education. Eighteen computing educators of varying seniority from eight universities in Ireland assessed the toolkit using nine research-driven attributes: four usefulness measures (novelty, relevance, trustworthiness, actionability) and five usability measures (effectiveness, aesthetics, navigation, terminology, user satisfaction). Data was analysed using mixed methods: deductive coding, quantitative sentiment scoring, and inductive thematic analysis. Educators rated TechMate highly for user satisfaction and praised its novelty and trustworthiness, with over 60% of participants reporting positively on all attributes, suggesting that research -informed tools can be designed for real-world use. Thematic analysis highlighted other challenges, including women students isolation, institutional resistance to change, and the scarcity of women role models, while also surfacing proposed solutions such as leveraging student ambassadors and fostering supportive learning environments.