Research Papers

Retail supply chain operations in supermarket chains involve continuous, high-volume manual workflows spanning demand forecasting, procurement, supplier coordination, and inventory replenishment, processes that are repetitive, decision-intensive, and difficult to scale without significant human effort. Despite growing investment in data analytics, the decision-making and coordination layers of these workflows remain predominantly manual, reactive, and fragmented across outlets, distribution centers, and supplier networks. This paper introduces Flowr, a novel agentic AI framework for automating end-to-end retail supply chain workflows in large-scale supermarket operations. Flowr systematically decomposes manual supply chain operations into specialized AI agents, each responsible for a clearly defined cognitive role, enabling automation of processes previously dependent on continuous human coordination. To ensure task accuracy and adherence to responsible AI principles, the framework employs a consortium of fine-tuned, domain-specialized large language models coordinated by a central reasoning LLM. Central to the framework is a human-in-the-loop orchestration model in which supply chain managers supervise and intervene across workflow stages via a Model Context Protocol (MCP)-enabled interface, preserving accountability and organizational control. Evaluation demonstrates that Flowr significantly reduces manual coordination overhead, improves demand-supply alignment, and enables proactive exception handling at a scale unachievable through manual processes. The framework was validated in collaboration with a large-scale supermarket chain and is domain-independent, offering a generalizable blueprint for agentic AI-driven supply chain automation across large-scale enterprise settings.

Ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy formal safety and policy constraints is a central challenge in safety-critical domains. While limitations of verification are often attributed to combinatorial complexity and model expressiveness, we show that they arise from intrinsic information-theoretic limits. We formalize policy compliance as a verification problem over encoded system behaviors and analyze it using Kolmogorov complexity. We prove an incompleteness result: for any fixed sound computably enumerable verifier, there exists a threshold beyond which true policy-compliant instances cannot be certified once their complexity exceeds that threshold. Consequently, no finite formal verifier can certify all policy-compliant instances of arbitrarily high complexity. This reveals a fundamental limitation of AI safety verification independent of computational resources, and motivates proof-carrying approaches that provide instance-level correctness guarantees.

In complex molecular systems, the reaction coordinate (RC) that characterizes transition pathways is essential to understand underlying molecular mechanisms. This review surveys a framework for identifying the RC by applying deep learning to the committor, which provides the most reliable measure of the progress along a transition path. The inputs to the neural network are collective variables (CVs) expressed as functions of atomic coordinates of the system, and the corresponding RC is predicted as the output by training the network on the committor as the learning target. Because deep learning models typically operate in a black-box manner, it is difficult to determine which input variables govern the predictions. The incorporation of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques enables quantitative assessment of the contributions of individual input variables to the predictions. This approach allows the identification of CVs that play dominant roles and demonstrates that the committor distribution on the surface using important CVs is separated by well-defined boundaries. The framework provides an explainable deep learning strategy for assigning a molecular mechanism from the RC and is applicable to a wide range of complex molecular systems.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity. Existing benchmarks of LLM social bias primarily evaluate demographic stereotypes, and when political bias is measured, it is done so at a coarse level, overlooking the values that shape sociopolitical reasoning. We introduce PoliticsBench, a multi-stage roleplay benchmark for evaluating fine-grained value expression in LLMs. Across twenty evolving scenarios, models articulate tradeoffs, take positions, and make decisions under competing pressures. Across eight prominent LLMs, we show that scenario-based prompting elicits broader and more strongly expressed value profiles than direct political questions, with peak interaction stages increasing the number of strongly activated value dimensions by approximately $0.75$ (out of 10 total dimensions), a statistically significant increase relative to baseline prompting ($p < 0.05$). In addition, commitment to a stance increases over the course of interaction, rising by approximately $1.4$ points on a $[0,5]$ scale from initial to decision stages. While responses become less robust to scenario paraphrasing in later interaction stages, inter-judge agreement remains relatively stable. Our results suggest that evaluating LLM political behavior requires moving beyond static prompts toward longer interactive settings that capture how values are applied in context.

Financial institutions face increasing cyber risk while operating under strict regulatory oversight. To manage this risk, they rely heavily on Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) to inform detection, response, and strategic security decisions. Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely suggested as a means to strengthen CTI. However, evidence of trustworthy production use in finance remains limited. Adoption depends not only on predictive performance, but also on governance, integration into security workflows and analyst trust. Thus, we examine how AI is used for CTI in practice within financial institutions and what barriers prevent trustworthy deployment. We report a mixed-methods, user-centric study combining a CTI-finance-focused systematic literature review, semi-structured interviews, and an exploratory survey. Our review screened 330 publications (2019-2025) and retained 12 finance-relevant studies for analysis; we further conducted six interviews and collected 14 survey responses from banks and consultancies. Across research and practice, we identify four recurrent socio-technical failure modes that hinder trustworthy AI-driven CTI: (i) shadow use of public AI tools outside institutional controls, (ii) license-first enablement without operational integration, (iii) attacker-perception gaps that limit adversarial threat modeling, and (iv) missing security for the AI models themselves, including limited monitoring, robustness evaluation and audit-ready evidence. Survey results provide additional insights: 71.4% of respondents expect AI to become central within five years, 57.1% report infrequent current use due to interpretability and assurance concerns and 28.6% report direct encounters with adversarial risks. Based on these findings, we derive three security-oriented operational safeguards for AI-enabled CTI deployments.

When providers update AI companions, users report grief, betrayal, and loss. A growing literature asks whether the norms governing personal relationships extend to these interactions. So what, if anything, is morally significant about them? I argue that this debate has missed a prior structural question: who controls the relationship, and from where? Human-AI companion interaction is a triadic structure in which the provider exercises constitutive control over the AI. I identify three structural conditions of normatively robust dyads that the norms characteristic of personal relationships presuppose and show that AI companion interactions fail all three. This reveals what I call Unilateral Relationship Revision Power (URRP): the provider can rewrite how the AI interacts from a position where these revisions are not answerable within that interaction. I argue that it is pro tanto wrong to design interactions that cultivate the norms of personal relationships while exhibiting URRP, because the design produces expectations that the structure cannot sustain. URRP has three implications: i) normative hollowing, under which the interaction elicits commitment but no agent inside it bears the resulting obligations; ii) displaced vulnerability, under which the user's emotional exposure is governed by an agent not answerable to her within the interaction; and iii) structural irreconcilability, under which the interaction cultivates norms of reconciliation but no agent inside it can acknowledge or answer for the revision. I propose design principles that partially substitute for the internal constraints the triadic structure removes. A central and underexplored problem in relational AI ethics is therefore the structural arrangement of power over the human-AI interaction itself.

There has been a growing research interest in Digital Therapeutic Alliance (DTA) as the field of AI-powered conversational agents are being deployed in mental health care, particularly those delivering CBT (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy). Our proposition argues that the current design paradigm which seeks to optimize the bond between a patient in need of support and an AI agent contains a subtle but consequential trap: it risks producing an "appearance of connection" that unintentionally disrupts the fundamental human need for relatedness, which potentially displaces the authentic human relationships upon which long-term psychological recovery depends. We propose a reorientation from designing artificial intelligence tools that simulate relationships to designing AI that scaffolds them. To operationalize our argument, we propose an interdisciplinary model that translates the Responsible AI Six Sphere Framework through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), with a specific focus on the basic psychological need for relatedness. The resulting model offers the technical and other clinical communities a set of relationship-centered design guidelines and relevant provocations for building AI systems that function not just as companions, but as a catalyst for strengthening a patient's entire relational ecology; their connections with therapists, caregivers, family, and peers. In doing so, we discuss a model towards a more sustainable ecosystem of relationship-centered AI in mental health care.

Predictive policing systems that direct patrol resources based on algorithmically generated crime forecasts have been widely deployed across US cities, yet their tendency to encode and amplify racial disparities remains poorly understood in quantitative terms. We present a reproducible simulation framework that couples a Generative Adversarial Network GAN with a Noisy OR patrol detection model to measure how racial bias propagates through the full enforcement pipeline from crime occurrence to police contact. Using 145000 plus Part 1 crime records from Baltimore 2017 to 2019 and 233000 plus records from Chicago 2022, augmented with US Census ACS demographic data, we compute four monthly bias metrics across 264 city year mode observations: the Disparate Impact Ratio DIR, Demographic Parity Gap, Gini Coefficient, and a composite Bias Amplification Score. Our experiments reveal extreme and year variant bias in Baltimores detected mode, with mean annual DIR up to 15714 in 2019, moderate under detection of Black residents in Chicago DIR equals 0.22, and persistent Gini coefficients of 0.43 to 0.62 across all conditions. We further demonstrate that a Conditional Tabular GAN CTGAN debiasing approach partially redistributes detection rates but cannot eliminate structural disparity without accompanying policy intervention. Socioeconomic regression analysis confirms strong correlations between neighborhood racial composition and detection likelihood Pearson r equals 0.83 for percent White and r equals negative 0.81 for percent Black. A sensitivity analysis over patrol radius, officer count, and citizen reporting probability reveals that outcomes are most sensitive to officer deployment levels. The code and data are publicly available at this repository.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly embedded in high-stakes decision environments, yet many governance approaches focus primarily on policy guidance rather than operational stability mechanisms. As AI deployments scale, organizations require governance architectures capable of maintaining reliable, auditable, and accountable behavior over time. This paper introduces the AI Governance Control Stack for Operational Stability, a layered governance architecture designed to ensure traceable and resilient AI system behavior. The proposed control stack integrates six complementary governance layers: system-of-record version governance, evidence-based verification, decision-time explainability logging, telemetry monitoring, model drift detection, and governance escalation. Together, these layers provide a structured mechanism for preserving governance integrity across the AI lifecycle while enabling organizations to detect instability, respond to emerging risks, and maintain regulatory accountability. The architecture aligns operational governance practices with emerging regulatory and standards frameworks, including the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management Systems, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. By combining explainability infrastructure with continuous monitoring and human oversight mechanisms, the governance control stack provides a practical blueprint for achieving hardened AI governance in complex enterprise environments. The paper contributes a conceptual governance architecture and a framework alignment analysis demonstrating how operational stability mechanisms can strengthen responsible AI implementation. The findings suggest that organizations must move beyond static policy frameworks toward integrated governance control systems capable of sustaining trustworthy AI operation in dynamic environments.

Concerns persist regarding the capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to sway political views. Although prior research has claimed that LLMs are not more persuasive than standard political campaign practices, the recent rise of frontier models warrants further study. In two survey experiments (N=19,145) across bipartisan issues and stances, we evaluate seven state-of-the-art LLMs developed by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and xAI. We find that LLMs outperform standard campaign advertisements, with heterogeneity in performance across models. Specifically, Claude models exhibit the highest persuasiveness, while Grok exhibits the lowest. The results are robust across issues and stances. Moreover, in contrast to the findings in Hackenburg et al. (2025b) and Lin et al. (2025) that information-based prompts boost persuasiveness, we find that the effectiveness of information-based prompts is model-dependent: they increase the persuasiveness of Claude and Grok while substantially reducing that of GPT. We introduce a data-driven and strategy-agnostic LLM-assisted conversation analysis approach to identify and assess underlying persuasive strategies. Our work benchmarks the persuasive risks of frontier models and provides a framework for cross-model comparative risk assessment.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based coding agents show promise in automating software development tasks, yet they frequently fail in ways that are difficult for developers to understand and debug. While general-purpose LLMs like GPT can provide ad-hoc explanations of failures, raw execution traces remain challenging to interpret even for experienced developers. We present a systematic explainable AI (XAI) approach that transforms raw agent execution traces into structured, human-interpretable explanations. Our method consists of three key components: (1) a domain-specific failure taxonomy derived from analyzing real agent failures, (2) an automatic annotation system that classifies failures using defined annotation schema, (3) a hybrid explanation generator that produces visual execution flows, natural language explanations, and actionable recommendations. Through a user study with 20 participants (10 technical, 10 non-technical), we demonstrate that our approach enables users to identify failure root causes 2.8 times faster and propose correct fixes with 73% higher accuracy compared to raw execution traces. Importantly, our structured approach outperforms ad-hoc state of the art models explanations by providing consistent, domain-specific insights with integrated visualizations. Our work establishes a framework for systematic agent failure analysis, addressing the critical need for interpretable AI systems in software development workflows

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) transfer visual and textual data into a shared embedding space. In so doing, they enable a wide range of multimodal tasks, while also raising critical questions about the nature of machine 'understanding.' In this paper, we examine how Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods can render the visual reasoning of a VLM - namely, CLIP - legible in art-historical contexts. To this end, we evaluate seven methods, combining zero-shot localization experiments with human interpretability studies. Our results indicate that, while these methods capture some aspects of human interpretation, their effectiveness hinges on the conceptual stability and representational availability of the examined categories.