Papers

Distinguishing GPT-assisted from independently authored student writing has become a critical challenge in academia. This paper evaluates the discriminative capability of interpretable stylometric features extracted solely from submitted text. Using data from 90 participants who wrote both independently and with ChatGPT assistance, we evaluate eight machine learning classifiers while keeping data from the same participant together during validation. On the held-out test set, Random Forest achieved an ROC-AUC of 0.87 and an F1-score of 0.84, with False Positive and False Negative rates of 22.2% and 11.1%, respectively. SHAP analysis shows that lexical and grammatical characteristics drive the resulting predictions. The findings suggest that transparent, text-intrinsic features provide measurable signal for detecting GPT-assisted writing.

Even though privacy policies are the primary mechanism organizations use to disclose how they collect, process, and share personal data, they are difficult for average users to interpret, perhaps by design, due to their verbosity and dense legal language. Importantly, there is a lack of standardized metrics that characterize key qualities of a privacy policy beyond regulatory requirements. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) make it feasible to automatically structure and analyze these documents at scale. In this study, we develop and evaluate an end-to-end, LLM-enabled system that converts raw privacy policies into fine-grained structured representations and a set of quantitative measures. Our pipeline applies a detailed taxonomy to extract specific data elements and governing practices, capturing relational links that connect each practice to the data elements it references. We apply our framework to a diverse corpus of 10,000 website privacy policies, yielding, to the best of our knowledge, the most comprehensive dataset of its kind to date. Building on our structured representations, we introduce the first standardized and repeatable quantitative metrics for evaluating privacy policies along four dimensions: completeness, transparency, commitment to user protection, and emphasis on business-driven data practices. This allows us to compare policies within and across industry sectors, and to assess the tension between user protection and business interests.

The vocabulary used to describe AI agents in governance contexts – learning, memory, values, compliance, identity, trust – is borrowed from psychological and organizational science, contributing to systematic failures in how organizations deploy, oversee, and hold agents accountable. This paper argues that the problem is not merely terminological but epistemological: psychological vocabulary carries an "invisible grammar" of its home discipline into governance discourse, calibrating frameworks to a metaphysical entity that does not exist in current AI architectures. We call this the disciplinary language transfer problem. Drawing on Wittgenstein's concept of language games, Kuhn's paradigm-laden observation, Haraway's situated knowledge, and Star and Griesemer's boundary object theory, we show that the transfer operates at three levels (epistemological assumptions, theoretical constructs, and surface vocabulary), each requiring a different remediation. We characterize six foundational epistemological assumptions embedded in Western psychological governance discourse, trace their origin in specific philosophical traditions, and show why each fails when applied to systems without developmental continuity. The paper's practical output is an actionable Disciplinary Audit: a six-question governance document scan operationalized through a translation taxonomy of thirty-seven terms mapping operational constructs to agent-appropriate replacements, presented here in abridged form and openly archived in full. The vocabulary reform proposed here is not merely terminological; it is the condition of possibility for governance frameworks that correctly identify what they are governing.

Deep learning systems now mediate military decisions to use force, yet their internal logic resists inspection, their evaluation practices are gameable, and their deployment fractures accountability across dispersed stakeholders. The ethical challenge posed by these systems is fundamentally epistemic: not just whether autonomous weapons should be permitted to kill, but whether the conditions for responsible human judgment can survive when critical functions are delegated to opaque algorithms. We show that this epistemic condition produces a concrete accountability gap: responsibility diffuses across designers, operators, and policymakers while International Humanitarian Law presupposes capacities for judgment that current AI systems lack. To address this gap, we propose a governance framework that proceduralizes ethical constraints through named accountability roles, adversarial auditing with undisclosed benchmarks, tiered deployment thresholds, and a proposed NATO evaluation standard. Counterfactual analysis of eight documented cases (1988-2025) shows that each governance mechanism addresses a documented class of failure, but no single safeguard suffices in isolation: effective governance of military AI requires not only technical constraints but the institutional infrastructure to keep human judgment meaningful.

Social norms cannot be identified from behavior alone: the same cooperative equilibrium may reflect shared expectations, strategic incentives, or simple imitation. Yet in multi-agent large language model systems, prior work largely treats behavioral convergence as evidence of norm emergence. In this work, we introduce an evaluation framework that measures agents' reported empirical and normative expectations in addition to behavioral convergence. Through controlled ablations, we test the effect of expectation elicitation and isolate two collective mechanisms central to theories of norm formation—social learning through interaction and social selection through network-based group formation. We further test the stability of these resulting dynamics under adversarial disruption across four LLM families. We find that eliciting expectations increases cooperative contributions, while social learning stabilizes behavior, and social selection reliably identifies cooperators but provides limited behavioral reinforcement. Following disruption, normative expectations and behavioral coordination recover differently. Together, these results show that similar cooperative outcomes can arise from different underlying social processes. By making expectations observable, our framework allows us to attribute each mechanism's contribution separately, offering designers of multi-agent systems a principled basis for selecting the social processes that sustain cooperation.

The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) requires Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines (VLOPs/VLOSEs) to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including actual or foreseeable negative effects on fundamental rights, and subjects these assessments to independent audit. Yet how such rights-relevant risks should be identified, assessed, evidenced, and documented remains methodologically under-specified. We address this gap by introducing a decision-tree-based toolkit that operationalizes Article 34(1)(b) DSA and related audit requirements into a structured assessment process. The toolkit decomposes platforms as systems-of-systems and guides assessors through DSA applicability, context definition, subsystem and stakeholder identification, risk identification, risk assessment, reporting, and visualization. A central design contribution is its treatment of vulnerability as situational and relational: rather than assigning vulnerability to fixed groups, the toolkit asks how particular platform subsystems and dependencies may place stakeholders in vulnerable positions. It further makes fundamental rights-relevant judgments traceable by recording the affected right, interference and justification analysis within the structure of a proportionality test, while also covering a perception and impact dimension including severity, scope, duration, reversibility, as well as practical consequences. We developed the toolkit iteratively through a design-science process combining literature-derived design requirements, three interdisciplinary expert workshops (N=4; N=11; N=20) testing the framework design with two DSA user persona scenarios. We contribute an extensible methodological foundation for making fundamental-rights risk assessments under the DSA more streamlined, systematic, transparent, and auditable.

The need for collaboration between diverse fields of research is increasingly recognised as important by research funding agencies. A significant driver of this need is the current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies. There is a growing interest in the potential impact of AI in different fields including the methodologies they use and the resulting advances in new knowledge, new access and enhanced productivity. However, there is also a corresponding increase in concern about the fundamentals of AI technologies and the way in which trans and/or interdisciplinary research is approached. The resulting collaboration too often ends up as a one-way street where the domain partner acts only as an information provider. For example, the contribution of the AHSS partner might be limited to providing insight about ethics and/or the technology partner may only provide a service to build applied AI-based solutions. In response to this problem, we propose a reciprocal approach to collaboration where both partners seek to understand, cooperate and identify jointly significant impacts. In this paper we explore this relationship between cultural heritage institutions (GLAMs), Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (AHSS) research and technology-led AI research, especially the impact of current technological advances in AI. Drawing from the history of convergence in GLAM studies, we propose five key practices to form a framework for greater understanding across this divide.

This study aimed to automate hierarchical diagnostic reasoning (HDR), a constructive method for evaluating practical judgment skills, by developing and testing an evaluation process using a large language model. HDR is a descriptive task that measures higher-order cognitive skills by requiring students to identify and explain errors in case-study-based problems. However, it requires expertise and effort to develop and evaluate. Hence, we proposed and empirically validated the automatic (1) generation of case problems containing errors aligned with educational intentions, (2) scoring of descriptive answers, and (3) generation of structured feedback based on incorrect answers, achieved solely through prompt design without fine-tuning. The internal consistency and construct validity of the generated problems were supported by the experimental score distribution and Cronbach's alpha (0.78). The agreement between automated and human ratings reached 100% under some conditions. The feedback was rated as being as convincing and useful as that from human instructors, demonstrating a practical framework for implementing HDR-based constructive assessment with reproducibility, immediacy, and low cost. The flexibility of large language models will also enable repeated and longitudinal assessments while maintaining structure, showing broad potential for application in educational settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are emerging as scientific assistants, yet their computational demands and limited domain specialization constrain sustainable deployment in environmental engineering. Here, we investigate whether domain-specialized small-scale LLMs can combine scientific capability with sustainable deployment in biological wastewater treatment. We developed a benchmark evaluating three scientific capabilities of LLMs: retrospective cognition, comprehension fidelity, and prospective extrapolation. BioWater (8 billion parameters, fine-tuned on specialized domain knowledge) achieved higher comprehension-fidelity scores than participating human experts and performance comparable to a 397-billion-parameter general-purpose LLM in retrospective cognition and prospective extrapolation. Human-BioWater collaboration generated a scientific hypothesis that was subsequently supported by laboratory experiments, demonstrating its potential to contribute to prospective scientific research. We further evaluated the economic and environmental implications of LLM deployment across global wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Locally deployed small-scale LLMs became more sustainable than cloud-based large-scale LLMs as inference demand increased in intelligent WWTPs. These findings highlight domain-specialized small-scale LLMs as a promising pathway towards scientifically capable, computationally efficient, and sustainably deployable artificial intelligence for wastewater treatment.

Marketers now deploy generative AI agents as synthetic consumers to pretest visual assets such as logos, packaging, and advertising at a fraction of human-panel cost. However, this procedure assumes that a model seeing a visual cue can also perceive its consumer meaning, which is largely untested. We stress-test the assumption using six canonical visual marketing experiments, varying the two levers managers control: model generation (GPT-4o-mini vs. GPT-5.4-mini) and input format (plain text vs. JSON). Every resulting configuration passed the manipulation checks; however, none of the configurations reproduced more than two of the six human effects, and the remainder were nonsignificant. The one exception was a significant reversal of the human pattern. Providing conceptual or empirical evidence through in-context learning steers average responses toward the human effect. Yet steering has a limit: even when it succeeds, a configuration reproduces less than half of the natural spread of human responses and so understates consumer heterogeneity. We integrate these results into an AI governance protocol (Calibrate, Intervene, Deploy) that delineates when synthetic consumers can responsibly screen creatives and when human panels remain necessary.

The Automated Ball-Strike challenge system that Major League Baseball adopted in 2026 offers a distinctive setting for studying human AI interaction in which umpires make every ball and strike call, while players can selectively ask an automated system to publicly overturn those decisions. We analyze 4,114,256 called pitches from 2015 through 2026 and 8,447 challenges from the 2026 season to examine how algorithmic review reshapes umpire judgment and player behavior. We study where umpires placed the effective strike zone boundary, how consistently they applied that boundary, how they responded to overturned calls, and which calls players chose to challenge. In 2026, the effective called boundary shifted toward the automated strike zone beyond the trajectory observed in prior seasons, while the consistency of that boundary largely continued its existing trend. Following an overturned call, umpires temporarily adjusted subsequent decisions near the corrected boundary, although these effects did not consistently persist into the next game. Count dependent variation in calling remained, while differences associated with player status narrowed. Players, meanwhile, left many overturnable calls unchallenged and appeared to base challenge decisions more strongly on immediately observable evidence than on the precise geometry of the automated zone. Together, these findings show that selective AI review does more than correct individual errors. It reshapes human judgment, adaptation, and strategic behavior around an algorithmic authority.

Personalized AI memories, defined as persistent decision-relevant states distilled by platforms from long-run human-AI interaction, are increasingly portable, provenance-certifiable, and tradable. Provenance answers the question of origin, but it does not settle who holds which rights over a memory, nor how wider deployment affects its future supply. We develop a unified model in which memory use is non-rival, while refresh, the maintenance of continued validity, is relationally co-produced by the represented individual and the platform. Even assuming perfect provenance and complete information, the model still yields a set of inherent limitations. First, there is an extraction ceiling: decision value is bounded by lived experience. Second, a rights-separation theorem shows that no budget-balanced ownership assignment can make both co-producers residual claimants, and that control rights and cash-flow rights operate on distinct margins. Third, a depletion result indicates that reach-expanding policies such as portability, interoperability, and competition raise current access but shrink the long-run memory stock. Fourth, we offer a formal comparison between memory ownership as it ought to be (subject-held) and as it is (platform-held); the welfare ranking reduces to two measurable quantities, both dominated by interior renewable-claim bundles. Finally, endogenous-quality and market-formation results show that uncompensated markets pollute their own raw material, that transparency and compensation are complements, and that the de facto platform-ownership regime is self-perpetuating. On the design side, the analysis points to separated provenance, performance, and permission credentials; compensation indexed to quality-deployment; and portability and salience, rather than nominal ownership, as the binding policy margins.

How can the conceptual commitments of a literary work connect its creation, interpretation, and evaluation? We propose Literary Axioms, a conceptual framework in which a work develops a configuration of claims about experience and commitments to literary form. A literary axiom is a provisional organizing premise whose scope and textual realization can be examined. The framework develops the proposal by Qiang Liu that writers select and combine such premises, realize them through characters, events, language, and form, and make them available for reconstruction by readers. We distinguish an open axiom space, a selected configuration, its relational organization, and situated reader reconstructions. This yields an account of coherence as organized compatibility or conflict, originality as a change in claims, relations, or realization, and interpretive richness as a plurality of textually grounded reconstructions. Five dimensions connect this account to literary evaluation: coherence, contextual reach, distinctiveness, realization fidelity, and interpretive richness. We specify boundary cases and derive five empirical predictions with observations that would count against them. A concrete implementation contains 1455 Chinese language records, 1464 mappings to 149 works, and 472 typed relationships. A descriptive audit establishes the structural integrity of the artifact and identifies gaps in reuse, context coding, and provenance. The paper contributes a theory based framework, an inspectable implementation, and a research program. Its predictions await reader and creative writing studies.

Disaster social sensing converts public social-media posts into evidence for situational awareness and humanitarian response, but plausible LLM-generated posts can contaminate this information stream and distort assessments of needs, damage, and resource priorities. This study empirically investigates whether text-based detectors can distinguish human-authored from LLM-generated disaster posts and what textual cues underlie their judgments. We construct CrisisFake, a Qwen2.5-7B-based dataset of 12,000 texts organized into 3,000 matched semantic units from nine disasters. Each unit contains an original human post, a minimally LLM-proofread human post, a fact-preserving LLM-generated post produced using LoRA, and an affectively reframed version of the artificial post. A separate 6,000-text corpus spanning 42 disaster events is independently constructed to support model selection and threshold calibration. We evaluate OSM-Det, Fast-DetectGPT, Binoculars, and direct LLM judges across five model families, and further examine how disaster-domain calibration and superficial linguistic cues, such as retweet markers, user mentions, hashtags, URLs, punctuation, and text length, affect detector performance. Across fourteen frozen configurations, AUROC ranges from 0.402 to 0.517, while the best prospective recall at a calibration-derived low-false-positive operating point is only 3.6%, indicating near-chance discrimination. For OSM-Det, a disaster-calibrated linear head improves AUROC to 0.817; however, a seven-feature textual classifier alone reaches AUROC 0.784 on the original-versus-factual-LLM contrast, and neutralizing identified surface asymmetries reduces the corresponding linear-head AUROC from 0.733 to 0.594. These findings provide empirical evidence that LLM-generated text detection is largely driven by linguistic cues and remains insufficiently robust for short-form disaster social media.

In this paper, we explore using generative agent-based models for a classical ABM application: testing how individual-level behavioral rules produce collective phenomena. We introduce RePair, a method that calibrates simulation worlds, operationalizes candidate mechanisms as natural-language rules, estimates their effects through matched interventions, and examines behavioral traces. We assess the method by testing it in four simulation worlds grounded in established social-science models and empirical studies. Our results reveal that (1) natural-language rules can produce measurable collective effects; (2) rule comparisons can converge as configurations accumulate; and (3) behavioral traces connect collective effects to agents' actions and interactions, helping researchers evaluate the proposed causal process. Together, these findings show the feasibility of using generative agent-based models to explore causal mechanisms and provide practical guidance for producing reliable, interpretable explanations.

In this paper, we motivate the need for a participatory speech dataset creation framework through a case study of the LGBTQIA+, or queer, community - a community with documented concerns about AI and reported harms, including attempts to develop 'gaydar' technologies that purportedly identify individuals as queer. We review common speech data collection practices, why these methods may be unsuitable for engaging with queer speakers, and discuss previous efforts in participatory AI with queer community engagement, as well as participatory endeavours specific to speech data collection for other marginalized communities. From this review, we develop a conceptual framework for participatory speech data curation by, for, and with marginalized communities drawing on insights from co-design and knowledge sharing. We propose a framework comprising overlapping and two-way processes of defining a community, project formulation, modes of participation, and personal autonomy.

Data centers are being developed at an unprecedented pace, yet their energy and water impacts, and the spatial and temporal distribution of these impacts, remain poorly characterized. Data centers consume water for cooling (direct) and through electricity generation (indirect). Decisions on siting and cooling technology result in water-energy trade-offs that extend impacts beyond the facility's location. Existing assessment frameworks rely on facility efficiency metrics and average grid water intensity factors, suppressing the temporal impacts of data center load and generation availability. They also attribute indirect consumption to the facility's location rather than to the generators (and corresponding hydrologic regions) that respond to the added load, misattributing spatial impacts. To close this gap, we develop a computational model of the data center-energy-water nexus that links facility cooling and electricity demand with hourly economic dispatch, generator-level water consumption, and monthly subbasin depletion. Built on open-source data, the model resolves where and when water is consumed, and where this consumption compounds existing water risk or creates new risk. Using the model, we study different cooling configurations and proposed developments in the state of Michigan. Air-cooled data centers halve total water consumption relative to evaporative cooling, but increase electricity demand and raise indirect water consumption by one-third, shifting the water footprint from the facility to generators. Mapping these changes to subbasins reveals depletion increases beyond the data center sites, in regions that facility-level reporting may overlook. These results show that data center water and energy impacts cannot be assessed in isolation, motivating the need for integrated modeling to inform siting, design, and reporting practices.

Because significant action to counter global warming requires massive public support, it is important to understand the dynamics of public opinion on climate issues. Of special interest are social tipping points, as revealed by large-scale effects of small perturbations in individual behaviors. Agent-based models (ABM) are an effective computational tool for studying these matters, because they allow controlled and systematic exploration of the effects of interventions that may be infeasible in real-world social systems. Large language models (LLMs) have been used to endow model agents with the ability to communicate in natural language (rather than by exchanging predefined messages), as well as with personality (in the form of a narrative self and episodic memory). We leverage LLM-powered ABM to look for tipping points in the social dynamics of a micro-society in which some of the discussions are about climate change. Our agents' stance was defined by two variables: the strength of conviction about the urgency of climate action and the degree of trust in existing institutions. We quantified shifts in agents' "beliefs" by monitoring, across multiple rounds of conversations, (1) inter-agent distances in this two-dimensional stance space and (2) the patterns of discussion topics as modeled by Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). Our findings to date suggest that significant abrupt changes in climate-change stance do occur in this simple model. We report a number of methodological lessons from this study, notably, the need to prevent LLM biases from interfering with the conversational dynamics and, more generally, to maintain agent personality and episodic memories of interactions in the face of such biases. Resolving these issues may allow for using ABM-derived insights in designing real-life interventions vis-a-vis climate change and other important societal challenges.

Third-party evaluations for frontier AI have mostly tested models through external interfaces before deployment. But the risks from frontier AI models depend on how their developers use and govern them internally. Recently, CEOs of frontier AI companies have committed to hosting embedded assessments. These assessments would give independent evaluators employee-like access to a developer's internal systems, staff, and documentation. First, we argue that this can enable deeper and more flexible assessments of risks that depend on internal systems and practices, while providing access under stronger security controls. Then, we examine seven design questions about scope, information gathering, duration, timing, terms of engagement, disclosure, and escalation. We recommend that frontier AI developers begin hosting embedded assessments now, covering at least three areas central to managing risks from internal AI use: internal agent monitoring, internal agent security controls and permissions, and model alignment. To enable meaningful third-party scrutiny, assessments should be continuous, evaluators should publish detailed reports at least quarterly, and clear escalation mechanisms should be established. These recommendations are intended as a starting point, with further steps needed to realize the full potential of embedded assessments.

As generative AI agents are deployed at scale, safety will depend not only on technical safeguards and individual model design, but also on collective equilibria that determine how agent populations process information, prioritize actions, and respond to uncertainty. Yet the same equilibria that enable agents to coordinate also create a social attack surface. The standard framework to assess this vulnerability is critical mass dynamics: the minimum fraction of adversarial agents required to overturn an equilibrium through direct competition. Here, we show that this approach risks underestimating system vulnerability by reducing the problem to the identification of singular tipping points, and ignoring indirect but potentially more efficient routes through which collective behavior can be redirected. Through experiments with populations of LLM agents and an analytic framework that captures their collective dynamics at scale, we map critical-mass thresholds that define a directed, weighted topology over the space of coordination equilibria, and treat this topology as a navigable landscape. We show that indirect tipping through intermediate stepping-stone equilibria can reduce the committed minority required to reach an alternative state, bypass majority requirements, and make possible transitions inaccessible through direct challenges. The diversity of available alternatives and timing of the attack further reshape this landscape, creating opportunities for control as well as risks of unintended destabilization. These results show that an equilibrium's resistance to committed intervention is not an intrinsic property but a structural feature of its competitive relations with alternative states. Securing populations of interacting AI agents therefore requires mapping this social landscape alongside individual agent capabilities and the technical channels through which they interact.

The rising global prevalence of mental health conditions, together with longstanding barriers in traditional healthcare, such as limited resources, high cost, stigma, and privacy concerns, has created an urgent need for accessible and scalable support. Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a transformative technology with strong potential to democratize mental health support through advanced natural language understanding and generation. However, the rapidly expanding, fragmented body of work in this area lacks a coherent evolutionary narrative, making it difficult to contextualize current progress and identify future directions. This survey addresses this gap by organizing and analyzing the literature around a central thesis: the role of LLMs in mental health is evolving through three distinct, increasingly sophisticated phases. We trace this trajectory from Phase I, in which LLMs act primarily as passive Information Tools and Pattern Recognizers for assessment; through Phase II, where they function as Empathetic Conversationalists for in-the-moment, stateless interactions; to the current frontier, Phase III, which seeks Longitudinal, Personalized Companions implemented as stateful cognitive agents. To support this framework, we systematically review core technologies, agent architectures (Profile, Memory, Reasoning, and Planning), and the critical infrastructure of datasets and benchmarks, highlighting how their evolution underpins this developmental path. Viewing the field through this developmental lens, we provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing work, an insightful narrative of its trajectory, and a clear roadmap for future innovation in responsible, effective, and human-centered AI for mental healthcare. A curated collection of the resources reviewed in this survey is available at our project repository: https://github.com/Emo-gml/Awesome-Mental-Health-LLMs.

Social simulation offers the social sciences an experimental instrument that the real world cannot supply, and generative agents have transformed it by acting as silicon samples that unite agent-based modeling with real behavioral data. Existing platforms verify collective behavior, align simulated populations with real societies in cross-sections, and employ autonomous agents for the research process. However, two social science requirements remain without systematic support: intervention in the content of a simulation and the researcher's control over the process that produces it. We present SocioVerse2, which extends SocioVerse 1.0 into a human-AI co-evolutionary paradigm built from two loops and one infrastructure. The longitudinal simulation loop simulates the target population with evolving environments and forks counterfactual branches via interventions. The controllable research loop takes the study itself as an editable state and updates state versions via controllable editing. The social science agentic infrastructure carries both loops through composable skills with researcher checkpoints, a population service over five persona pools, and an environment service over 21 real-world signal sources with point-in-time guarantees. We validate SocioVerse2 across three case families and seven case studies, from reproducing canonical agent-based models to modeling policy processes on real records and nowcasting macro-economic indices beyond the response model's knowledge cutoff. With the human-AI co-evolutionary paradigm, these cases go beyond system demonstrations to become substantive studies that investigate frontier questions in their respective disciplines. Code, data services, and a workbench are released as open-source resources.

We built a node that grounds a replaceable language model in a maintained ontology corpus, then asked what its successful-looking evaluation could support. Across ten models, grounding raised target-name recall from 0.265 unaided to about 0.92. A copy baseline, the recall a verbatim copy of the shown context already achieves, scores 0.964, and every model sits 0.022 to 0.067 below it. Copying therefore scores higher on this limited recall measure, which does not assess whether answers are better. The comparison tests what a recall score establishes; it does not test whether reasoning occurred, because a reasoned answer and a copy score alike when the answer name is already in context. We report exposure accounting (four counts classifying each gold item by whether the context exposed it and the answer recovered it) and a model-judged audit of 423 sampled item observations. A separate paired production study found a model-judged quality gain of +0.27 [+0.11, +0.45] on a 0-5 scale. Operational studies found failures that recall alone would not show: rephrasing questions out of the graph's vocabulary cut exposure from 0.964 to 0.328, yet the absence-keyed fallback would have fired on only 2 of 506; and inserting extracted facts degraded judged pages in every arm, so that step was disabled. Five-arm controls show that any well-formed on-corpus block beats no context but do not establish that the specific content matters, and no matched comparison against flat-text retrieval was run. The corpus is public and largely LLM-generated, which establishes neither training exposure nor novelty. Each study has its own outcome measure. Where gold derives from the injected corpus, we recommend reporting the accounting beside quality judgements, not in place of them.

Artificial intelligence (AI) registers and inventories aim to make governmental AI visible, but their institutional scope, schemas, and reporting practices construct different representations of public-sector AI. We compare 8,368 records from country-specific and transnational inventories covering 72 countries. Across 23 harmonized fields, registers shared a descriptive core but rarely requested information about appeals, risks, legal bases, or external evaluation. We found that broad schemas often contained substantial missingness, schema similarity showed no significant patterned convergence, and multiple sources covering the same jurisdictions overlapped only selectively. Based on these findings, we synthesize a layered visibility framework that shows how register records reflect disclosure arrangements and why interoperability requires shared concepts, clear definitions, and preserved provenance.

AI governance increasingly requires providers and public authorities to reason about multiple AI instantiations, alternative versions, and deployment configurations of multiple AI systems. Yet current regulation remains predominantly single-system-centric, acknowledging such multiplicity only sparsely without treating collections of related AI systems as governance objects. This creates an AI population governance problem: determining which instantiations can be meaningfully considered together and how their changing configurations can be represented and monitored. The first requirement has recently been addressed through trustworthiness-based accounts of AI identity. We address the second by introducing convex AI compositionality: a formal representation of the configurations generated by finite AI system populations that uses convex spaces. The core idea is that convex compositions of the operational states that a population of AI system instantiations may occupy over time are compatible with lifecycle reachability across the population and can preserve the formal identity relations between these systems. Well-known statistical and geometric constructions, such as weighted state distributions and convex hulls, become AI governance tools for distinguishing operational states, population weights, heterogeneity, and AI configuration change across different governance modes while remaining compatible, under stated conditions, with lifecycle reachability and AI identity. We illustrate our AI population governance framework through distributed healthcare deployments and controlled deployment of recruitment AI variants.

Providing autonomous intelligence, pervasive connectivity and usability to human life and industry has led to the emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT). To support time-sensitive and resource-constrained applications, IoT systems nowadays increasingly rely on edge computing. This brings computation and decision-making closer to end devices. In edge-enabled IoT architecture, latency and communication overhead are reduced, but interactions among a larger and more diverse set of devices, edge nodes, services, and data sources are introduced as well. In such environments, security and privacy mechanisms provide the foundation for protection, while trust management can assess the reliability of interacting entities and adapting secure decisions. In this paper, we systematically review the current state of trust management in edge-enabled IoT. To this end, we propose a comprehensive taxonomy that maps physical, network, and application architectural IoT layers against the consumer, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure IoT domains. We further investigate state-of-art research based on their trust design, how trust integrated into secure IoT operations, the attacks that effect trust management process. Based on these findings, we identify key gaps in current research and outline future directions for context-aware and adaptive trust management in edge-enabled IoT.

Computational social science increasingly relies on large language models for text annotation, and the validity of published findings now rests on the labels generated by such models. Decision models, a new model class built for categorical question answering, answer typed questions with a choice, a probability distribution over the label set, and a confidence score rather than free text, at a small fraction of frontier inference prices. Whether their answers are accurate, and whether that stated confidence can be trusted on social science constructs, are unknown. Here, we mirror the evaluation of Ziems et al. (2024) on 18 computational social science classification tasks (7,977 items), comparing the first commercial decision model and two open-weight counterparts against 19 frontier and open-weight language models under the same zero-shot protocol, and extending the decision-model comparison to eleven open-weight systems released in the week after it. The decision model trails the per-task best LLM on 14 of 15 evaluation tasks, with a median deficit of 11.6 macro-F1 points, at a median 44 times lower measured cost. Its confidence is better calibrated than the verbalized confidence of 16 of the 19 LLMs, yet three frontier models show lower median calibration error (0.157 against 0.066). While items above 0.9 confidence are typically labeled accurately (median accuracy 0.815), on one task, empathy in peer-support dialogues, the model reports high confidence while performing near chance. Nonetheless, our results suggest that decision models are useful as a first step in the annotation pipeline: routing low-confidence items to an LLM matches or exceeds the LLM alone at a quarter to half of its cost.

Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior (CIB) has become a major concern in online social platforms, yet its actual impact on information diffusion remains poorly understood. Existing research has primarily focused on detecting coordinated activity, while comparatively little attention has been devoted to quantifying its influence once detected. In this work, we introduce two complementary frameworks for the post-hoc evaluation of coordinated accounts. First, we formulate the problem on information cascades as a constrained influence maximization problem over directed trees and develop a polynomial-time dynamic programming algorithm that computes the optimal placement of coordinated nodes, providing an upper bound on their achievable influence. Second, motivated by the limited availability of diffusion cascades in real-world platforms, we propose a network-based framework that estimates influence directly from retweet networks using the independent cascade model and compares the observed placement of coordinated accounts against established heuristic baselines. We evaluate both approaches on Twitter/X data from the 2019 UK General Election and on a collection of verified state-backed information operation campaigns spanning multiple countries. While coordinated accounts exhibit limited influence in the UK cascades, the network-based analysis reveals substantial differences across campaigns, with several operations achieving influence comparable to or exceeding that of structurally central seed sets. Finally, by reconstructing cascades from the retweet networks, we show that the two frameworks produce consistent results, suggesting that the observed effects reflect intrinsic structural properties of coordinated activity rather than artifacts of the underlying methodology.

This chapter introduces the concept of the Anthropocene into critical data studies, a field that has, for the past decade, explored the entanglements between datafication and politics. With the scaling up of contemporary datafication alongside generative computing, it is essential to expand these debates, both theoretically and methodologically, to consider the logics of extraction and exploitation inherent in the politics of artificial intelligence. Critical data scholars are called to interrogate how dominant narratives around the materiality of contemporary datafication either obscure or reveal its environmental impacts, along other key questions such as who benefits from these logics. To illustrate this, this chapter brings two case studies from Spain and Chile and explores how the infrastructure of contemporary datafication intersects with existing power structures, influencing which social and environmental consequences are recognized, addressed, and neglected. Finally, it invites critical data scholars to keep exploring the politics of data, infrastructure, and the Anthropocene by blending discipline boundaries between science and technology studies, media, geography, and political ecology.

Evidence about sexual violence in Bangladesh is fragmented across individual reports, while official and civil-society statistics rarely provide reusable case-level detail. We examine how structured analysis can make one part of this fragmented record legible without treating it as prevalence data. Our corpus contains 2,811 articles timestamped 2013-2023 from the Prothom Alo publishing ecosystem; 2,794 include parseable metadata about reported victims, alleged perpetrators, incidents, legal responses, and locations. We combine descriptive and spatial analysis of these records with thematic analysis of 115 convenience-sample survey responses collected in late 2020. The corpus documents many young, female, and student victims, frequent acquaintance and neighbor relationships, uneven geographic documentation, and substantial missingness in legal outcomes. Respondents most often describe weak enforcement, insecurity, patriarchal socialization, education gaps, and community inaction as conditions enabling persistence. These findings characterize news documentation and public perceptions; they do not estimate incidence, geographic risk, or causality. We contribute an uncertainty-aware framing for HCI research using sensitive, low-resource news data and identify design requirements for provenance, privacy, validation, and responsible communication.