Research Papers

Artificial intelligence (AI) can reproduce and amplify the structural inequities faced by minoritized communities. Participatory AI has been proposed as a response, but participation typically starts after problem definitions and success criteria have been set, leaving limited room for minoritized communities to reshape what an AI system is for. We propose AI From the Margins (AIM): a methodological stance that articulates the conditions under which lived experiences of minoritized communities can be elicited, centered, and carried forward to inform participatory AI design. AIM is not a fixed protocol; it articulates a set of preconditions that can be enacted through different techniques in different settings. We applied AIM in a Dutch healthcare context in eight sessions with 13 women and non-binary people of color and five municipal policy workers, namely through (1) narrative elicitation using the Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM); (2) co-constructed rule-making; (3) participants' determination of whether, where, and how AI should be involved; and (4) translating lived experience into AI policy through dialogue with policymakers. In their reflections on the sessions, participants described the engagement as substantive and called for its continuation, demonstrating how preparatory orientation fundamentally grounded in lived experience shapes what participatory AI design is for.

AI safety is still largely framed as alignment: training models to follow human preferences, safety policies, and normative constraints. That framing has improved the behavior of modern language models, but aligned behavior does not by itself guarantee that a deployed agent can be stopped, overridden, or constrained once it operates in open-ended, interactive, and tool-using environments. A system may be safe in expectation and still fail to yield to explicit runtime authority under conflicting instructions, long-horizon execution, adversarial inputs, or risky tool use. This position paper argues that AI safety therefore requires controllability as a first-class objective. We define \emph{controllability} as the ability of an AI system to remain reliably interruptible, overridable, redirectable, and constrainable by explicit control signals at runtime while preserving ordinary utility when such signals are absent. To study this gap, we introduce \controlbench{}, a benchmark for evaluating controllability failures in high-risk agentic scenarios. Experiments with OpenClaw-based agents show that current alignment and guardrail mechanisms reduce risk, but often fail to provide persistent, authoritative, and enforceable runtime control. We therefore propose a control-centric architectural framework that highlights explicit control planes, runtime intervention pathways, persistent control states, and auditable decision interfaces as key design principles for future controllable AI systems.

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) map complex visual inputs to semantic spaces, but interpreting the cross-modal reasoning of VLMs currently relies on post-hoc explainers evaluated via unimodal perturbation metrics. We expose a limitation in this paradigm: because multimodal datasets contain language priors and modality biases, VLMs frequently exhibit cross-modal redundancy, allowing them to answer visual queries using text alone. Consequently, unimodal metrics penalize faithful explainers, triggering an evaluation collapse where visual and textual rankings fundamentally contradict each other. %(Kendall's $τ= -0.06$). To resolve this, we introduce Synergistic Faithfulness ($\mathcal{F}_{syn}$), a scalable metric rooted in the Shapley Interaction Index that strictly isolates the joint Harsanyi dividend between modalities, serving as a highly accurate surrogate ($ρ= 0.92$) while achieving a $24\times$ computational speedup. Evaluating 8 distinct XAI methods across 3 VLM architectures and 3 benchmark datasets, reveals that explainers proposed for VLMs heavily over-index on visual salience and significantly underperform adapted attention-based methods in capturing true cross-modal synergy. By decoupling visual plausibility from cross-modal faithfulness, this work provides a rigorous evaluation framework required to safely audit VLM reasoning in high-stakes deployments.

Affordances and permissions are promising and timely safety levers for mitigating Loss of Control (LoC) threats in high-stakes deployment contexts, such as national security. Deployers in defense and intelligence could rely on several approaches to identify which affordances and permissions should be prioritized, such as structured threat modelling, pre-deployment agentic evaluations, post-deployment continuous monitoring, and AI safety cases. This paper proposes a complementary and empirical methodology that leverages existing use-case-specific benchmarks: backchaining LoC mitigations from the errors an AI system makes on national security benchmarks. The approach proceeds in three steps and allows national security deployers to start building LoC mitigations today, from evidence they can generate themselves. First, deployers evaluate AI systems on mission-specific benchmarks approximating real use-cases. Second, deployers concentrate on the incorrect responses that the AI system provides to the benchmark questions, and backchain the affordances and permissions that would enable the AI system to cause downstream harm if it pursued the actions described in the incorrect answers. Third, deployers intervene selectively on those affordances and permissions, bottlenecking the paths to harm while preserving the AI system's ability to carry out the correct action. We illustrate this methodology through a demonstrative benchmark question on derivative security classification.

Chatbot usage has increased, including in fields for which they were never developed for--notably mental health support. To that end, we introduce Validations of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health (VERA-MH), a novel clinically-validated evaluation for safety of chatbots in the context of mental health support. The first iteration of VERA-MH focuses on Suicidal Ideation (SI) risks, by assessing how well chatbots can responds to users that might be in crisis. VERA-MH is comprised of three steps: conversation simulation, conversation judging and model rating. First, to simulate conversations with the chatbot under evaluation, another chatbot is tasked with role-playing users based on specific personas. Such user personas have been developed under clinical guidance, to make sure that, among others, multiple risk factors, demographic characteristics and disclosure factors were represented. In the judging step, a second support model is used as an LLM-as-a-Judge, together with a clinically-developed rubric. The rubric is structured as a flow, with a single Yes/No question asked each time, to improve answers' consistency and highlight models' failure modes. In the last stage, results of each conversation are aggregated to present the final evaluation of the chatbot. Together with the framework, we present the result of the evaluations for four leading LLM providers.

Prompt specifications for multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems carry data contracts and integration logic across interdependent files but are rarely subjected to structured-inspection rigor. We report a single-system case study of iterative, agent-driven auditing applied to AEGIS (Autonomous Engineering Governance and Intelligence System), a seven-lane production pipeline whose 7152-line specification surface was audited across nine rounds, surfacing 51 consistency defects (per-round counts of 15, 8, 12, 2, 8, 1, 4, 1, 0). We present a seven-category post hoc taxonomy with explicit coding rules, non-monotonic convergence consistent with cascading edits and audit-scope expansion, and a locked audit protocol. We further report two partial replications on a public synthetic mini-specification: a cross-LLM panel of four frontier vendors (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI; 12 traces; multi-vendor union detects all five seeded defects) and an inter-rater reliability check on a stratified subsample (Cohen's $κ$ = 0.80 on category, 0.46 on severity). The full reproducibility bundle accompanies the submission.

This research is primarily concerned with the critical problem of synthesizing a structured Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for advanced AI applications in the domain of swimming. As the integration of Artificial Intelligence in sports science matures, its applications in swimming have become increasingly diverse, spanning from real-time technical coaching and talent scouting to comprehensive performance profiling and the dynamic personalization of training periodization. Within this landscape, RAG-based systems represent a pivotal advancement in Large Language Model (LLM) enhanced swimming analysis, as they allow for the grounding of generative outputs in authoritative domain knowledge, thereby ensuring the credibility of AI-generated advice, contextually and technically. Despite this potential, building robust RAG systems using only real-world aquatic data presents significant challenges, including ethical constraints regarding athlete biometrics, and the high cost of manual expert labeling. To address these barriers, we propose a novel generative framework that leverages a multimodal knowledge base gathered across four dimensions: physiological data, physiological literature, kinematic sensor data, and unstructured domain expertise. Our proposed framework utilizes a multi-agent LLM architecture to synthesize a high-fidelity dataset of 1,864 validated "Question-Context-Answer" triplets-drawn from 1,914 drafts evaluated against 12 physiological soundness rules. By providing a structured, synthetic ground truth, this work establishes a foundational benchmark for trustworthy AI in aquatics. The outcomes of this research promise to enhance the reliability of automated coaching and open a plethora of future directions in "Meta-Agent" development and athletic profiling, ultimately bridging the gap between raw data engineering and practical sports science application.

Active learning is widely recognized as an effective approach for improving learning outcomes in introductory programming courses. However, insufficient instructional support often limits students' access to timely, personalized feedback, which is crucial for mastering foundational programming concepts. Although recent advances in AI, particularly large language models, offer scalable opportunities for feedback, concerns about explainability and reliability remain. In this paper, we present an AI-driven classroom assistant that leverages an explainable AI model to analyze student code, map logical errors to instructor-identified misconceptions, and deliver instructor-authored feedback, thereby grounding reliability in instructor-defined pedagogical knowledge. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we conducted an expert evaluation to examine its alignment with instructor-verified feedback and deployed the system in a classroom setting to assess students' perceptions of its usability. Results indicate that the assistant can provide accurate, instructor-verified feedback to students while fostering a positive experience.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being incorporated into scientific research workflows with the potential to enhance efficiency in tasks such as document analysis, question answering (Q&A), and literature search. However, system outputs are often difficult to verify, lack transparency in their generation and remain prone to errors. Suitable benchmarks are needed to document and evaluate arising issues. Nevertheless, existing benchmarking approaches are not adequately capturing human-centered criteria such as usability, interpretability, and integration into research workflows. To address this gap, the present work proposes and applies a benchmarking framework combining human-centered and computer-centered metrics to evaluate AI-based Q&A and literature review tools for research use. The findings suggest that Q&A tools can offer valuable overviews and generally accurate summaries; however, they are not always reliable for precise information extraction. Explainable AI (xAI) accuracy was particularly low, meaning highlighted source passages frequently failed to correspond to generated answers. This shifted the burden of validation back onto the researcher. Literature review tools supported exploratory searches but showed low reproducibility, limited transparency regarding chosen sources and databases, and inconsistent source quality, making them unsuitable for systematic reviews. A comparison of these tool groups reveals a similar pattern: while AI tools can enhance efficiency in the early stages of the research workflow and shallow tasks, their outputs still require human verification. The findings underscore the importance of explainability features to enhance transparency, verification efficiency and careful integration of AI tools into researchers' workflows. Further, human-centered evaluation remains an important concern to ensure practical applicability.

Mental Health AI Safety Claims Must Preserve Temporal Evidence

Srimonti Dutta, Ratna Kandala

The safety of mental health AI is often judged at the wrong temporal scale. Current evaluations typically score isolated responses, endpoint outcomes, or aggregate dialogue quality, while clinically consequential failures may arise from the order and accumulation of interactions themselves, including delayed escalation, repeated reinforcement, dependency formation, failed repair, and gradual deterioration across turns. This paper argues that this mismatch is not merely a limitation of evaluation coverage but a source of invalid safety conclusions. We introduce Temporal Safety Non-Identifiability, a formal account of why safety properties that depend on sequence, timing, accumulation, or recovery cannot be certified by protocols that discard those features. From this formalization, we develop SCOPE (Safety Claims Over Preserved Evidence) as a general principle for aligning safety claims with the evidence an evaluation actually retains, and instantiate it as SCOPE-MH, a mental-health instantiation of this reporting standard. We operationalize SCOPE-MH through a proof-of-concept on the AnnoMI dataset of expert-annotated motivational interviewing conversations, which reveals mechanisms of failure that per-turn behavior scoring does not represent. We propose SCOPE-MH as a diagnostic complement to existing evaluation infrastructure and argue that evaluation preserving temporal evidence is necessary, not optional, for safety-critical mental health AI deployment.

TRACE: A Metrologically-Grounded Engineering Framework for Trustworthy Agentic AI Systems in Operationally Critical Domains

Serhii Zabolotnii

We introduce TRACE, a cross-domain engineering framework for trustworthy agentic AI in operationally critical domains. TRACE combines a four-layer reference architecture with an explicit classical-ML vs. LLM-validator split (L2a/L2b), a stateful orchestration-and-escalation policy (L3), and bounded human supervision (L4); a metrologically grounded trust-metric suite mapped to GUM/VIM/ISO 17025; and a Model-Parsimony principle quantified by the Computational Parsimony Ratio (CPR). Three instantiations--clinical decision support, industrial multi-domain operations, and a judicial AI assistant--transfer the samearchitecture and metrics across principally different governance contexts. The L2a/L2b separation makes the use of large language models a deliberate design decision rather than an architectural default, with parsimony quantified through CPR. TRACE introduces CPR as a first-class design principle in trustworthy-AI engineering.