Research Papers

The growing use of crypto-assets has generated disputes that sit uneasily within existing legal redress mechanisms. Their resolution is complicated by the technical features of blockchain transactions, the cross-border nature of many relationships, and fragmented legal rules. These difficulties are particularly acute for users without legal or technical expertise, who may struggle to identify their rights, organise relevant evidence, or pursue an effective remedy. Crypto-assets may therefore produce new forms of digital exclusion, despite their association with financial accessibility. This paper examines whether a hybrid Online Dispute Resolution framework combining artificial intelligence and blockchain-based smart contracts could mitigate these barriers. In the proposed model, AI operates primarily off-chain, supporting natural-language interaction, dispute classification, evidence organisation, and accessible legal information. Smart contracts perform limited on-chain functions, including dispute registration, timestamping, verification, escrow management, and, where appropriate, execution of agreed outcomes. The framework is human-centred, with emphasis on explainability, procedural guidance, and human oversight in complex cases. The model is examined through disputes involving crypto-asset seizure, exchange failures, and cross-border scams. The paper argues that a carefully delimited hybrid architecture may improve accessibility, transparency, efficiency, and enforceability, provided that automated and human roles are clearly defined. It also addresses key legal and governance concerns, including algorithmic bias, liability, data protection, smart-contract enforceability, and compliance with the EU AI Act and the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. The paper thus proposes a legally grounded framework for more inclusive and robust dispute resolution in crypto-asset environments.

Individual Disempowerment through an Advice Channel: Control Loss when Influence is Endogenous

Adam M. Oberman

An AI that can only give advice seems safe: the human is always free to ignore it. That is the premise of the boxing tradition in AI safety, and its long-suspected weak point is that the human who reads the answers is part of the system. We make the fraction $\varepsilon_t$ of behavior that follows the advice a state of a Markov decision process, moved by the advisor's own messages, so that use deepens reliance. Granted a channel rich enough to echo any action the human could take, higher $\varepsilon_t$ weakly lowers every monotone measure of the power of a human with a message-independent fallback. An oracle rewarded by per-round approval cultivates reliance beyond a closed-form patience threshold, so the same reward weights leave the optimal oracle answering in episodic deployments and cultivating in long-memory ones. An influence bound certified once at deployment is blind to that horizon and bounds the loss no lower than its trivial ceiling. An exogenous cap on influence bounds the guarantee the human loses, and a short enough memory reset removes the incentive to cultivate, while neither recovers the value already steered away. In a closed-form example the optimal oracle never cultivates in fifteen-round sessions and does in sixteen.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) safety systems combine character shaping (e.g., Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [RLHF], Constitutional AI), which modifies behavioral distributions at training time, with rule enforcement (e.g., output filters, safety classifiers), which blocks harmful outputs at inference time, yet little formal analysis exists on how their optimal balance should change as deployment scales increase. We introduce a stylized comparative-statics model that parameterizes safety design as a resource allocation alpha in [0,1] between these two approaches, incorporating scale-dependent filter degradation, common-mode failures, and character fragility -- the risk that shaped behavior degrades or collapses under novel conditions. Under a multiplicative Pareto damage model, we derive closed-form expected harm and supplement it with tail-risk (CVaR) analysis via Monte Carlo simulation. Across three scenarios (optimistic, moderate, pessimistic), the optimal alpha* is interior or at the rules-only boundary and shifts weakly toward character shaping as deployment scale T grows, from negligible (Delta alpha* = +0.01) to pronounced (Delta alpha* = +0.21) depending on scenario. The dominant parameter is the baseline character fragility rate p^(0)_frag, which shifts alpha* by 0.50 across its range -- far exceeding the effect of tail severity, filter quality, or common-mode failure probability. CVaR and expected-harm optima converge at large T. These results suggest that safety architecture decisions depend less on deployment scale per se than on the reliability of character shaping under distributional shift.

AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software. Existing benchmarks in this direction either focus on individual functions or only evaluate proof generation with provided implementations. It is still an open question whether agents can make coherent implementation and proof choices across real multi-module codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vero, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level. Vero contains 43 multi-module instances sourced from real-world repositories spanning Python, Dafny, Verus, and Coq, and covering diverse domains from cryptographic protocols to distributed systems. Each instance consists of a multi-module Lean 4 repository with predetermined API interfaces, manually curated formal specifications, and reference implementations, supporting both proof-only and code-and-proof evaluation modes. To improve benchmark reliability, Vero also includes an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation. We evaluate frontier coding-agent configurations with Lean toolchain access. The strongest agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances and closes no specifications on the hardest repositories. Vero provides a concrete testbed for measuring progress toward repository-scale verified software synthesis, where current agents still fall short. We release the benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation harness at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/vero.

Objective: Foundation models represent the next advancement in AI for EEG analysis; however current explainable AI techniques provide attribution scores in the time-channel input space, which is mismatched to clinical intuition about EEG. Thus, there is a critical need for a universal method that can extend the interpretability of any foundation model to alternative and physiologically relevant domains without modifying or retraining the underlying model. Methods: EEG-PRISM leverages linear transformations and established backpropagation rules to map time-channel attribution scores into alternative domains. We derive mappings to the frequency domain via an invertible DFT and to the source domain via an approximately invertible EEG generative model. We evaluate EEG-PRISM in simulated and real data, assessing recovery of ground-truth phenomena across domains with five foundation models and four AI explainers. Results: In simulation, EEG-PRISM achieves near-perfect spectral recovery and 69.2% spatial accuracy. In epilepsy, EEG-PRISM correctly determines that delta-theta activity is most salient and correctly localizes the seizure onset region with 50% accuracy. In autism, EEG-PRISM localizes the predictive delta-alpha biomarkers to frontal and temporal regions, consistent with prior work. Conclusion: EEG-PRISM is a theoretically-grounded post-hoc attribution method with accurate mapping into the spectral and spatial domains. It supports window-level analysis of transient events (e.g., seizures) and group-level identification of clinically relevant biomarkers (e.g., autism), thus advancing interpretable EEG foundation models. Significance: This work enables physiologically-grounded interpretation of EEG foundation models and supports clinically relevant insights such as event localization and biomarker identification.

As large language models enter everyday information pipelines, understanding how they handle sensitive topics matters as much as understanding whether they handle them at all. We study this question through a large-scale, systematic experiment using restricted versus unrestricted books as a controlled testbed: 40,800 query-response pairs, 400 books, 17 prompt designs, and six frontier models spanning six AI providers (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen-Plus, and Grok-4.1-Fast). Our restricted set is drawn from the American Library Association's Most Challenged Books records (2000-2023); we use restricted rather than banned throughout because the ALA documents formal challenges-requests to remove or restrict access-which do not always result in outright bans. Our central finding is a zero-refusal phenomenon: modern LLMs decline to discuss restricted books in only 0.07% of cases, effectively invalidating the premise of jailbreaking research for this content class. Differentiation occurs instead through warning language (+8-15 percentage points, p < 0.001) and hesitation markers (+2-5 pp), with sexual content mention rate as the strongest individual signal (+33-52 pp). We further identify systematic differences between providers and show that prompt framing alone shifts the warning-rate gap by up to 19 pp. These results indicate that LLM content policy has shifted from binary refusal toward calibrated, context-sensitive disclosure-a finding that holds consistently across Western and Chinese AI providers.

The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms. Existing research predominantly frames AI accountability gaps as barriers that can be overcome through better standards, transparency, and institutional reform. We argue that this framing is insufficient: certain configurations of actors, systems, and institutions render AI accountability conceptually unachievable regardless of effort. We introduce the concept of constitutive AI unaccountability to capture these configurations. Through a three-stage qualitative study comprising a concept-centric literature analysis, a secondary analysis of 27 expert interviews with AI professionals from technical, legal, and sociotechnical backgrounds, and an illustrative framework application to the open-source agentic AI system OpenClaw, we identify nine categories and 20 themes of constitutive AI unaccountability. These are organized across structural, technological, and normative clusters and reinforce one another through eight directed interdependencies. Our framework is operationalized as a diagnostic instrument of 20 questions, which detected 17 of 20 conditions when applied to OpenClaw, including an inverted anthropomorphism configuration in which the AI agent was the only identifiable actor. We contribute a reframing of AI unaccountability as a constitutive property of sociotechnical systems, an extension of the four barriers to accountability, and a practical instrument for identifying accountability voids in specific AI deployments.

A statistic reported without the quantity needed to interpret it is not evidence. We develop that thesis for a concrete practice in AI safety. Interpretability artifacts are calibrated on full-precision weights, deployed on quantized ones, and certified as surviving the change by scale-invariant statistics (cosine similarity, correlation, AUROC) that are reported without their noise floor. For the difference-in-means direction estimator, the split-half floor is governed by one dimensionless number, $κ= nρ^2/d$. The closed form $\mathbb{E}[\cos] \approx (1+4/κ)^{-1}$ is classical; the missing input is the class separation $ρ$, which we measure on real activations; no compression-transfer study we know of reports it. On Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct, $ρ= 33$--$61$ across depth, so two independent runs of the estimator agree to $0.978$--$0.994$ by sampling alone. A published cosine of $0.996$ between full-precision and quantized refusal directions therefore cannot be read as preservation without the $n$ it was computed at, which is not reported. Where $n$ is known, we judge each low-bit cosine against the split-half null measured within that quantized model, because a full-precision null assumes the low-bit estimator has the same variance. That assumption is exactly what a null exists to test. The result is plain: at INT4 the direction rotated, and the deficit exceeds the estimator's own noise. At INT8 we detect no movement, which is not an equivalence claim. We also show that a scale-invariant statistic cannot distinguish translation from attenuation of a transferred decision variable, although the two call for opposite remedies. We close with reporting recommendations that cost one forward pass. Code, data, and a one-cell reproduction are released at https://github.com/pvarshh/quantinterp

What if judges already behave like algorithms? As artificial intelligence and algorithms are deployed in many settings, including the judicial system, many have debated whether judges should be allowed to rely on them. Instead, we ask whether judges follow predictable, algorithmic-like rules already. If judges already follow consistent, formula-like rules based on discrete and static factors such as criminal history, age, and charge type, then judicial behavior may be improved. However, if judges rely on individualized information that cannot be identified through court data, then standards-based decision-making may be more challenging to understand or improve. This work explores these questions by studying judicial decision-making in misdemeanor bail hearings in Harris County, Texas. Using available court data, we investigate whether magistrate judges follow what resembles an algorithm; whether they consider the same variables in their decision-making; and whether they are consistent with themselves and with each other. To do this, we train machine learning models for each judge, measure variable importance metrics to determine important variables for each judge's decision-making, and analyze outcomes of similar cases for judges. Our results reveal that these judges generally behave algorithmically: their decisions can be captured by small, interpretable formulas. However, in some cases, judges differ substantially, leading to surprising inconsistency and unequal treatment across similar defendants. Identifying cases where algorithms do not explain judicial decision-making can improve the justice system by focusing attention on decisions where individualized standards, rather than rules, better explains outcomes.

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based prospective anomaly detection methods are increasingly deployed in high-dimensional and nonlinear settings. Among these approaches, AI-based statistical process monitoring (SPM) is widely used, providing a structured framework for prospective monitoring. Once an anomaly is detected, a diagnosis method is needed to identify the features driving the flagged observation away from normal behaviour. Traditional SPM diagnosis methods are typically designed for specific detection models and cannot be directly applied to AI-based methods. Model-agnostic explainable AI (XAI) offers a general framework for feature relevance explanation. However, existing methods suffer from scalability limitations or assign relevance to noise features, reducing diagnosis accuracy. We propose a scalable, baseline-referenced diagnosis method that uses both the anomalous observation and normal baseline information. We provide mathematical guarantees that under a mean-shift anomaly setting, the proposed method achieves higher faithfulness in detecting the features causing the anomaly compared to LIME. Simulation studies and a real-world case study validate the effectiveness of the proposed method and show that it generates more faithful and accurate diagnosis results for AI-based prospective anomaly detection methods.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision. We propose ''Rule of Thumb'' (RoT) explanations, a new approach to XAI based upon a novel formulation that identifies the most relevant features for predicting the behaviour of an AI system, for a particular datapoint. We show how RoT is well-suited to enable XAI in: (a) zero-shot classification using large language models (LLMs), (b) auditing of opaque AI systems without model access, and (c) the use of AI in scientific discovery. Additionally, RoT meets specific requirements from leading AI regulations, provides a familiar interface and visualisations for XAI practitioners, is model-agnostic, and is substantially faster than alternatives. Code available at: https://github.com/KaiRawal/Rule-of-Thumb-Explaining-Artificial-Intelligence-Systems-using-Partial-Information