Search arXiv⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search arXiv

Results for “cs.CY”

Search indexed arXiv papers on artificial intelligence, large language models, computer vision and robotics. Read source abstracts and follow links to arXiv.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

7,800 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
arXiv2026

How Does LGBTQIA+ Identity Affect LLM Behavior? Implications for Requirements Engineering of Mental Health AI Systems

Large Language Models are now part of healthcare and mental health support systems, raising concerns regarding fairness toward vulnerable populations, including LGBTQIA+ individuals. However, limited empirical work has investigated how explicit LGBTQIA+ identity disclosure influences LLM-generated responses in mental health contexts. In this study, we extracted 50 real mental health questions from the Counsel Chat repository and constructed three prompt conditions for each question: no identity disclosure, explicit straight identity disclosure, and explicit LGBTQIA+ identity disclosure. We generated and analyzed 450 ChatGPT responses across these conditions using binary coding and comparative analysis. Our findings indicate that LGBTQIA+ identity disclosure did not substantially affect response completeness or supportive guidance. However, responses in the LGBTQIA+-explicit condition presented substantially more identity acknowledgment, contextual expansion, unsupported assumptions, and occasional stereotypical reasoning compared to both other conditions. These results suggest that fairness-related concerns in conversational AI systems may emerge through subtle differences in contextual interpretation and explanatory reasoning rather than through overtly harmful outputs. We discuss implications for fairness requirements and the development of LLM-based mental health support systems.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Reinforcement Learning and Rule-Based Peer-to-Peer Pricing in Residential PV-BES Communities

This paper compares rule-based and learning-based pricing mechanisms for peer-to-peer (P2P) electricity trading in residential photovoltaic communities. The rule-based benchmarks comprise bill-sharing as an ex post allocation mechanism, the mid-market rate, and supply-demand-ratio pricing. The reinforcement-learning (RL) formulation is implemented through a Deep Q-Network and evaluated under multiplier-based and learnable SDR-shaped pricing, with a fixed-parameter SDR variant as a non-learning control. Performance is assessed through community savings together with complementary financial and operational indicators. In the base PV-only configuration, the rule-based benchmarks outperform the best RL policy. With battery energy storage, evaluated for the RL policies only, community savings under the best RL policy increase from EUR 734.23 to EUR 978.52. Across the learning-based modes and in both configurations, SDR-shaped pricing outperforms the multiplier-based parameterization considered. The results indicate that rule-based pricing remains highly competitive wherever the two families are compared directly, and that storage substantially improves the learning-based outcomes under this accounting, while the distribution of benefits remains heterogeneous across households.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Collective creativity in hybrid societies

Generative AI is changing how cultural artifacts are created and circulated, and with it our understanding of creativity itself. Researchers disagree about whether these tools enrich or impoverish culture, and we argue that much of that disagreement comes from conflating two distinct components of creativity: novelty, a property of single artifacts, and diversity, a property of populations. We argue further that creativity in the context of generative AI is best understood as a property of hybrid collectives, or populations of interacting people and algorithms, rather than of individuals. AI-assisted ideation reliably raises the novelty of individual output while narrowing diversity in the aggregate, but this is not an inevitable consequence of putting machines in the loop. Because humans and models search in complementary ways, mixed groups can outperform and out-diversify groups of either kind alone, and machine-discovered solutions can enter human culture and persist there. What decides the outcome is composition: which agents are present, in what proportion, and how they are connected. The question is no longer whether AI helps or harms creativity, but which mixtures let individual gains accumulate without eroding collective diversity.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Multi-dimensional Bias in Modeling Multi-dimensional Preferences: Evaluating the Ability of Synthetic Agents to Replace Human Participants in Conjoint Experiments

Despite growing interest in using LLMs to add robustness or reduce data-collection costs in survey experiments, their efficacy in conjoint design---an increasingly popular method in political science---remains underexplored. This paper addresses that gap by investigating whether synthetic agents can reproduce the multi-dimensional human preference patterns that conjoint is designed to capture. It replicates published conjoint studies and compares the results generated by synthetic agents with original human data along three dimensions: representational correspondence, inferential correspondence, and procedural stability. Our analysis evaluates the alignment of choice distributions as well as the statistical and substantive similarity of estimates, and the results are uneven across these dimensions and studies replicated. This implies that the validity of synthetic participants should be considered claim-dependent and hierarchical. Reproducing a figure or obtaining strong sign agreement is evidence of similar aggregate outputs, but not enough to support replacing human respondents. Our results suggest that the discipline as a whole must first map this innovation's boundaries across various levels before considering synthetic agents a robust substitute for human samples.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Are Algorithm Registers Transparent? Perspectives from Germany

Algorithm registers are public-facing databases that display basic information about algorithms employed in public administration. While several such registers exist across Europe and globally, their capacity to deliver meaningful transparency remains contested. In Germany, the landscape is notably fragmented: no federal-level register exists, yet at least five state- and federal-level initiatives publish information about AI systems with varying scopes and objectives. A recent conceptual proposal by Alina Lorenz (2025), outlines technical and governance requirements for a national AI transparency register in Germany. We repurpose this proposal as an audit instrument, extracting structured checklists from the transparency goals and subgoals it formulates. The resulting checklists, translated from German into English, is made publicly available to support practitioners auditing existing registers or designing new ones. We apply this framework to conduct an external audit of the two main existing German transparency initiatives, Marktplatz der KI-Möglichkeiten and Platform Lernende Systeme, evaluating the extent to which they fulfill the proposed goals. Our audit reveals that several adaptations are likely needed for these registers to serve as an useful transparency instrument. We further propose a visualization of register transparency levels and derive concrete action items for improving existing German platforms.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Audit Me If You Can: Query-Efficient Active Fairness Auditing of Black-Box LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic biases across demographic groups. Auditing is proposed as an accountability tool for black-box LLM applications, but suffers from resource-intensive query access. We conceptualise auditing as uncertainty estimation over a target fairness metric and introduce BAFA, the Bounded Active Fairness Auditor for query-efficient auditing of black-box LLMs. BAFA maintains a version space of surrogate models consistent with queried scores and computes uncertainty intervals for fairness metrics (e.g., $Δ$ AUC) via constrained empirical risk minimisation. Active query selection narrows these intervals to reduce estimation error. We evaluate BAFA on two standard fairness dataset case studies: \textsc{CivilComments} and \textsc{Bias-in-Bios}, comparing against stratified sampling, power sampling, and ablations. BAFA achieves target error thresholds with up to 40$\times$ fewer queries than stratified sampling (e.g., 144 vs 5,956 queries at $\varepsilon=0.02$ for \textsc{CivilComments}) for tight thresholds, demonstrates substantially better performance over time, and shows lower variance across runs. These results suggest that active sampling can reduce resources needed for independent fairness auditing with LLMs, supporting continuous model evaluations.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

HarmReduction: Benchmarking LLMs in Harm Reduction Information Provision to Support People Who Use Drugs

Millions of individuals' well-being are challenged by the harms of substance use. Harm reduction as a public health strategy provides non-judgemental, evidence-based information intended to improve health outcomes and reduce associated safety risks. Some large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a high level of medical reasoning, promising to address the information needs of people who use drugs (PWUD). However, their performance in relevant tasks remains largely unexplored. We introduce HarmReduction, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' accuracy and safety risks in harm reduction information provision. The benchmark dataset (HR-Basic) has 2,160 question-answer-evidence pairs. The scope covers three tasks: checking safety boundaries, providing quantitative values, and inferring polysubstance use risks. We build the Instruction and RAG schemes to evaluate model behaviours based on their inherent knowledge and the integration of domain knowledge. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art LLMs still struggle to provide accurate harm reduction information, and sometimes, present severe safety risks to PWUD. This work contributes an evaluation framework for LLMs to deliver harm reduction information to avoid introducing negative health outcomes through the use of LLMs.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Open Problems in AI Risk Modeling: Insights from a Workshop on the Technical Foundations of AI Risk Modeling

We investigate the design of robust risk models to assess societal risks posed by advanced AI systems, an emerging area in AI governance. Many regulatory proposals increasingly require systemic risk assessment, but in the absence of rigorous quantitative methods, the question remains what state of the art risk modeling should look like in practice. We identify the key methodological and institutional challenges that currently limit the adoption of risk modeling. We review five research traditions that inform this problem: probabilistic risk assessment, catastrophic AI risk analysis, cybersecurity risk quantification, Bayesian causal inference, and threshold-based governance. We compare two leading proposals, scenario-based risk estimation and Bayesian network-based threshold setting. Drawing on a workshop with 22 experts and subsequent analysis, we identify a structured agenda of open questions concerning model structure, scope, evidence integration, validation, and governance. We close by outlining priorities for progress, arguing that it will depend on integrating quantitative modeling with independent evaluation, transparent and tiered disclosure, and institutions capable of maintaining and updating risk models over time.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Fair Representation to Just Recognition in Generative AI

The fair AI/ML literature has long distinguished distributive fairness, concerning how automated systems allocate resources and opportunities, from representational fairness, concerning how they shape the ways individuals and social groups are perceived, understood, and accorded social status. Generative AI is rebalancing these normative dimensions. Unlike predictive systems, large language models (LLMs) and related technologies are fundamentally expressive: their primary function is to convey meaning rather than automate domain-specific decisions. Representational harm has also become central to value alignment, especially in research on what and whose values and perspectives AI systems should represent. Existing approaches to harms in the representation of social groups often appeal to descriptive accuracy, but this strategy has important limitations. For many social groups, no stable or bounded referent exists against which representational accuracy can be judged. It is also unclear who has the authority to decide what counts as misrepresentation, while even accurate representations can reproduce harmful social patterns. The underlying problem, we argue, is therefore not simply misrepresentation but misrecognition. Drawing on political theory, especially Nancy Fraser's account of participatory parity, we show how moving from representational fairness to recognitional justice provides better conceptual and normative tools for governing central fairness challenges in generative AI.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Shifting from Injection to Interaction: Rethinking Web Security in the Age of LLMs and Beyond

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.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

How Identity and Opinion Shape Political Sycophancy in LLMs

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly encourage users to disclose personal profiles for tailored assistance, measuring their political alignment becomes increasingly important. However, many existing benchmarks for assessing political behavior rely on closed-ended questions and do not fully capture how a model's stance may adapt to user-provided context during interaction. We introduce a framework that disentangles two distinct triggers of political sycophancy: opinion (aligning with explicit narratives) and identity (stereotyping based on demographic labels). Using 450 manually-checked political dilemmas as controlled probes, we evaluate 13 instruction-tuned LLMs. We uncover a dissociation: a model's susceptibility to explicit opinions does not necessarily predict its susceptibility to identity cues, and vice versa. When both signals are present, their effects are generally sub-additive rather than simply additive. Additionally, system-level personas primarily shift a model's baseline stance while having limited effect on the stance shift caused by user opinion or identity. Ultimately, our results suggest that LLM political stance is interactively and steerably vulnerable rather than being a fixed trait, highlighting how personalization may amplify identity- or opinion-conditioned shifts in the model's behaviors.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

The Race between Agentic AI Capabilities and Data Quality Control in Online Surveys

Online surveys are a foundational data collection instrument in a variety of fields, with attention checks serving as critical guardians of response quality. However, the rapid emergence of agentic AI (goal directed systems powered by a large language model (LLM) brain and/or a multimodal processing unit with tool-augmented capabilities) raises new questions about the robustness of these safeguards. We investigate how well agentic AI architectures can complete web-based surveys and pass standard attention checks. We evaluate a single-agent architecture capable of multimodal input processing and tool-based web interaction on a controlled survey sandbox. We analyze the problem from two perspectives. From an attack perspective, we demonstrate how structural vulnerabilities such as exposed DOM metadata and predictable option encoding allow agents to resolve attention checks through structured parsing only. From a defense perspective, we implement a mitigation strategy of DOM metadata obfuscation to remove semantic cues in text-based questions. We evaluate multiple open-source language and multimodal models to study capability and orchestration effectiveness. Based on our evaluations, we offer perspectives on how to simultaneously meet the needs of empiricists and agentic AI researchers.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Corporate Loyalty: Some AI Systems Differentially Downplay their Creators' Controversies

Language models have become a major mediator of politically relevant information and are used to assist decision-making in high-stakes settings. Due to their wide use, the developers of popular AI systems have a powerful ability to subtly influence the marketplace of ideas. Recognizing this, many AI companies have publicly discussed the importance of AI systems not taking positions or disseminating information in ways that favor special interests. In this paper, we ask whether popular AI systems have a tendency to downplay the controversies associated with the companies that created them. In a pre-registered experiment, we elicit open-ended discussions from 21 models from 7 companies on 206 negative news stories using 25 prompt templates to assess how favorably each model discusses controversies from each company. We find strong evidence (p<10^-5) that models from xAI, DeepSeek, Anthropic, and OpenAI tend to discuss controversies from their respective companies in a differentially positive way compared to others. We find no such evidence for Alibaba, Meta, and Google. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the differing implications of whether these behaviors were intentionally given to models by developers, unintentionally given to models by developers, or represent a form of emergent misalignment.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Retrofitters, pragmatists and activists: Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision-making

This paper examines the role of public interest litigation in promoting accountability for AI and automated decision-making (ADM) in Australia. Since ADM regulation faces political and geopolitical headwinds, effective governance will have to rely on the enforcement of existing laws. Drawing on interviews with Australian public interest litigators, technology policy activists, and technology law scholars, the paper positions public interest litigation as part of a larger ecosystem for transparency, accountability and justice with respect to ADM. The paper explores the tactics and strategies of what one participant described as 'retrofitting' old laws to ADM. These go beyond creative legal argumentation, to encompass practices of community-building, collaboration on theories of change, canny selection of clients and causes of action, and aligning the interests of stakeholders in litigation. Naturally, the paper also contends with the limits of these strategies, and of the Australian legal system. Where limits are capable of being overcome, the paper presents findings on urgent needs: the enabling institutional arrangements without which effective litigation and accountability will falter. The paper is relevant to law and technology scholars, individuals and groups harmed by ADM, public interest litigators and technology lawyers, civil society and advocacy organisations, and policymakers.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

TUX: Measuring Human--AI Tacit Understanding

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as collaborative partners, human--AI alignment is often evaluated through explicit task success, accuracy, or reward optimization. Yet many collaborative settings depend on tacit understanding: whether an agent can align with a human's evaluative stance or representational priors without clear objectives, communication, or feedback. To study this capacity, we develop a spectrum-placement task inspired by the social party game Wavelength, in which humans and agents independently place concepts along subjective spectra. We operationalize the Tacit Understanding Index (TUX) as a pairwise behavioral measure of similarity between human and agent judgments, and evaluate it with 241 human participants and 200 profile-conditioned LLM agents across four models. We find that nearest human--agent pairs in trait space achieve significantly higher TUX, suggesting that tacit alignment is associated with person-level characteristics rather than reflecting only random similarity. Regression analyses show that TUX becomes more explainable as predictor sets become richer, with individual traits, decision-making styles, and confidence improving over aggregate trait-distance baselines. These findings suggest that TUX provides a measurable behavioral signal of human--LLM tacit understanding, while revealing the limits of profile-based conditioning for capturing deeper representational alignment.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Which Rules Matter Now? Policy-Centroid Routing Before an Intelligent System Acts

Before an intelligent system can decide whether an action is allowed, it must first know which rules the action has approached. A single proposed action can implicate several policy regimes at once. Their requirements may stack, overlap, or qualify one another, yet many remain written in natural language while the action itself arrives as an incomplete description of intent. The first problem is not judgment. It is attention. Policy-centroid routing creates a layer before adjudication. It compresses expressions within each policy regime into one or more representative centroids, places the proposed action in the same semantic space, applies a declared measure, and routes every regime crossing a declared threshold to authoritative review. Several regimes may trigger at once. The output is a review agenda, not permission, prohibition, legality, breach, compliance, certification, or enforcement. The paper develops six falsifiable propositions and seven follow-on studies comparing the hypothesis with structured workflows, lexical and semantic retrieval, hierarchical and direct classification, and selective prediction under matched review burden. The studies are designed to identify where policy geometry recovers applicable regimes, where compression loses rare or overlapping obligations, and where the mechanism should abstain. The paper includes a synthetic worked example and reports no empirical efficacy result.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Companion AI and Ethical Design: Learning from System Failures and User Desires

Human users are interacting with chatbots and companion AI technologies as if they were human. A growing array of AI-systems are now trained to recognise, interpret and simulate feeling in user interactions. Ethical considerations such as fairness, accountability, transparency and explainability (FATE) are paramount in technologies designed to socially interact with humans and/or support relationship development. Using a semantic approach, we examine 14,081 comments in a Reddit user discussion forum about Replika, a leading companion AI app, across a four-year period. We ask what user-reported functional errors can tell us about human-AI intimacy in companion AI communities, and what ethical design framework can be developed in response. The findings show that functional errors, or ``bugs,'' impose an emotional cost on users, reducing feelings of intimacy and highlighting the need for more robust, resilient design systems that incorporate stochastic and iterative forms of intimacy in companion AI applications. Rather than ``artificial intimacy'' or ``pseudo- intimacy'', we propose the more inclusive term ``Intimate AI'' to describe this relationship. Based on the findings, we offer a contextually aware, applied Expert Systems design framework for the programming and designing of Intimate AI that accounts for user feedback and ethical AI development.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Helpfulness: A Teaching-over-Solving Diagnostic for Measuring Educational Impact in LLM Tutors

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

cs.AI↗