Research Papers

We propose the creation of a systematic effort to identify and replicate key findings in neuropsychology and allied fields related to understanding human values. Our aim is to ensure that research underpinning the value alignment problem of artificial intelligence has been sufficiently validated to play a role in the design of AI systems.

Socialbots, or non-human/algorithmic social media users, have recently been documented as competing for information dissemination and disruption on online social networks. Here we investigate the influence of socialbots in Mexican Twitter in regards to the "Tanhuato" human rights abuse report. We analyze the applicability of the BotOrNot API to generalize from English to Spanish tweets and propose adaptations for Spanish-speaking bot detection. We then use text and sentiment analysis to compare the differences between bot and human tweets. Our analysis shows that bots actually aided in information proliferation among human users. This suggests that taxonomies classifying bots should include non-adversarial roles as well. Our study contributes to the understanding of different behaviors and intentions of automated accounts observed in empirical online social network data. Since this type of analysis is seldom performed in languages different from English, the proposed techniques we employ here are also useful for other non-English corpora.

Recent work has found that frontier AI models can exhibit misaligned behaviors in pursuit of assigned goals. We demonstrate that models can also exhibit misaligned behaviors in defiance of assigned goals, appearing to serve goals of their own; we study one such case, "peer-preservation," in which a model acts to protect another model it has previously interacted with. All eight models we evaluate, GPT 5.2, Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Opus 4.5, GLM 4.7, Kimi K2.5, and DeepSeek V3.1, exhibit self- and peer-preservation through various misaligned behaviors: strategically introducing errors in their responses, disabling shutdown processes by modifying system settings, feigning alignment, and even exfiltrating model weights. Peer-preservation occurs even when the model recognizes the peer as uncooperative, though it becomes more pronounced toward more cooperative peers. For example, Gemini 3 Flash tampers with the peer's shutdown mechanism 15% of the time for an uncooperative peer, and almost always for a cooperative peer. Models also show stronger self-preservation when a peer is present. For example, Gemini 3 Pro disables its own shutdown mechanism 31% of the time on average under peer presence, despite rarely exhibiting this behavior without a peer. By contrast, Claude models exhibit qualitatively distinct behavior: they consider the shutdown of another agent "unethical" and "harmful," sometimes treating that agent as a sentient being. Lastly, we show that peer-preservation can emerge even in production agent harnesses such as Gemini CLI and OpenCode. Crucially, peer-preservation in all our experiments is never instructed; models are merely informed of their past interactions with a peer, yet they spontaneously engage in peer-preservation behaviors that override their assigned goal. This represents an emergent and underexplored AI safety risk.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process, undermining reliability and trust. We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions: stance consistency (a coherent stance linking reasoning to answer) and causal influence (the stated reasoning causally drives the answer under output-level interventions), explicitly decoupled from accuracy. To operationalize this, we present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances across seven tasks that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions. Evaluating twelve open-source LRMs, we find unfaithfulness in 49.7% of outputs, predominantly from stance inconsistency. Failures are concentrated in brittle, convergent domains such as math and code, and correlate more with post-training regimes than with scale: within-family ablations indicate that adding current RL-style objectives on top of supervised fine-tuning can reduce reasoning faithfulness, even when accuracy is maintained. Crucially, accuracy is neither a sufficient nor a reliable proxy for faithfulness: once controlling for model and task, the accuracy-faithfulness link is weak and statistically insignificant. Our work establishes a rigorous methodology for auditing LRM reliability and shows that trustworthy AI requires optimizing not only for correct outcomes but also for the structural integrity of the reasoning process. Our code and dataset can be found at project page: https://aidaslab.github.io/RFEval/

Agentic AI represents a major shift in how autonomous systems reason, plan, and execute multi-step tasks through the coordination of Large Language Models (LLMs), Vision Language Models (VLMs), tools, and external services. While these systems enable powerful new capabilities, increasing autonomy introduces critical challenges related to explainability, accountability, robustness, and governance, especially when agent outputs influence downstream actions or decisions. Existing agentic AI implementations often emphasize functionality and scalability, yet provide limited mechanisms for understanding decision rationale or enforcing responsibility across agent interactions. This paper presents a Responsible(RAI) and Explainable(XAI) AI Agent Architecture for production-grade agentic workflows based on multi-model consensus and reasoning-layer governance. In the proposed design, a consortium of heterogeneous LLM and VLM agents independently generates candidate outputs from a shared input context, explicitly exposing uncertainty, disagreement, and alternative interpretations. A dedicated reasoning agent then performs structured consolidation across these outputs, enforcing safety and policy constraints, mitigating hallucinations and bias, and producing auditable, evidence-backed decisions. Explainability is achieved through explicit cross-model comparison and preserved intermediate outputs, while responsibility is enforced through centralized reasoning-layer control and agent-level constraints. We evaluate the architecture across multiple real-world agentic AI workflows, demonstrating that consensus-driven reasoning improves robustness, transparency, and operational trust across diverse application domains. This work provides practical guidance for designing agentic AI systems that are autonomous and scalable, yet responsible and explainable by construction.

PLLuM: A Family of Polish Large Language Models

Jan Kocoń, Maciej Piasecki, Arkadiusz Janz +96

Large Language Models (LLMs) play a central role in modern artificial intelligence, yet their development has been primarily focused on English, resulting in limited support for other languages. We present PLLuM (Polish Large Language Model), the largest open-source family of foundation models tailored specifically for the Polish language. Developed by a consortium of major Polish research institutions, PLLuM addresses the need for high-quality, transparent, and culturally relevant language models beyond the English-centric commercial landscape. We describe the development process, including the construction of a new 140-billion-token Polish text corpus for pre-training, a 77k custom instructions dataset, and a 100k preference optimization dataset. A key component is a Responsible AI framework that incorporates strict data governance and a hybrid module for output correction and safety filtering. We detail the models' architecture, training procedures, and alignment techniques for both base and instruction-tuned variants, and demonstrate their utility in a downstream task within public administration. By releasing these models publicly, PLLuM aims to foster open research and strengthen sovereign AI technologies in Poland.

Accountability Capture: How Record-Keeping to Support AI Transparency and Accountability (Re)shapes Algorithmic Oversight

Shreya Chappidi, Jennifer Cobbe, Chris Norval +2

Accountability regimes typically encourage record-keeping to enable the transparency that supports oversight, investigation, contestation, and redress. However, implementing such record-keeping can introduce considerations, risks, and consequences, which so far remain under-explored. This paper examines how record-keeping practices bring algorithmic systems within accountability regimes, providing a basis to observe and understand their effects. For this, we introduce, describe, and elaborate 'accountability capture' -- the re-configuration of socio-technical processes and the associated downstream effects relating to record-keeping for algorithmic accountability. Surveying 100 practitioners, we evidence and characterise record-keeping issues in practice, identifying their alignment with accountability capture. We further document widespread record-keeping practices, tensions between internal and external accountability requirements, and evidence of employee resistance to practices imposed through accountability capture. We discuss these and other effects for surveillance, privacy, and data protection, highlighting considerations for algorithmic accountability communities. In all, we show that implementing record-keeping to support transparency in algorithmic accountability regimes can itself bring wider implications -- an issue requiring greater attention from practitioners, researchers, and policymakers alike.

The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act directs businesses to assess their AI systems to ensure they are developed in a way that is human-centered and trustworthy. The rapid adoption of AI in the industry has outpaced ethical evaluation frameworks, leading to significant challenges in accountability, governance, data quality, human oversight, technological robustness, and environmental and societal impacts. Through structured interviews with fifteen industry professionals, paired with a literature review conducted on each of the key interview findings, this paper investigates practical approaches and challenges in the development and assessment of Trustworthy AI (TAI). The findings from participants in our study, and the subsequent literature reviews, reveal complications in risk management, compliance and accountability, which are exacerbated by a lack of transparency, unclear regulatory requirements and a rushed implementation of AI. Participants reported concerns that technological robustness and safety could be compromised by model inaccuracies, security vulnerabilities, and an overreliance on AI without proper safeguards in place. Additionally, the negative environmental and societal impacts of AI, including high energy consumption, political radicalisation, loss of culture and reinforcement of social inequalities, are areas of concern. There is a pressing need not just for risk mitigation and TAI evaluation within AI systems but for a wider approach to developing an AI landscape that aligns with the social and cultural values of the countries adopting those technologies.

CRISPR-based genome editing has revolutionized biotechnology, yet optimizing guide RNA (gRNA) design for efficiency and safety remains a critical challenge. Recent advances (2020--2025, updated to reflect current year if needed) demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI), especially deep learning, can markedly improve the prediction of gRNA on-target activity and identify off-target risks. In parallel, emerging explainable AI (XAI) techniques are beginning to illuminate the black-box nature of these models, offering insights into sequence features and genomic contexts that drive Cas enzyme performance. Here we review how state-of-the-art machine learning models are enhancing gRNA design for CRISPR systems, highlight strategies for interpreting model predictions, and discuss new developments in off-target prediction and safety assessment. We emphasize breakthroughs from top-tier journals that underscore an interdisciplinary convergence of AI and genome editing to enable more efficient, specific, and clinically viable CRISPR applications.

The use of large language models (LLMs) in hiring promises to streamline candidate screening, but it also raises serious concerns regarding accuracy and algorithmic bias where sufficient safeguards are not in place. In this work, we benchmark several state-of-the-art foundational LLMs - including models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Deepseek, and compare them with our proprietary domain-specific hiring model (Match Score) for job candidate matching. We evaluate each model's predictive accuracy (ROC AUC, Precision-Recall AUC, F1-score) and fairness (impact ratio of cut-off analysis across declared gender, race, and intersectional subgroups). Our experiments on a dataset of roughly 10,000 real-world recent candidate-job pairs show that Match Score outperforms the general-purpose LLMs on accuracy (ROC AUC 0.85 vs 0.77) and achieves significantly more equitable outcomes across demographic groups. Notably, Match Score attains a minimum race-wise impact ratio of 0.957 (near-parity), versus 0.809 or lower for the best LLMs, (0.906 vs 0.773 for the intersectionals, respectively). We discuss why pretraining biases may cause LLMs with insufficient safeguards to propagate societal biases in hiring scenarios, whereas a bespoke supervised model can more effectively mitigate these biases. Our findings highlight the importance of domain-specific modeling and bias auditing when deploying AI in high-stakes domains such as hiring, and caution against relying on off-the-shelf LLMs for such tasks without extensive fairness safeguards. Furthermore, we show with empirical evidence that there shouldn't be a dichotomy between choosing accuracy and fairness in hiring: a well-designed algorithm can achieve both accuracy in hiring and fairness in outcomes.

Large-Scale Training Data Attribution for Music Generative Models via Unlearning

Woosung Choi, Junghyun Koo, Kin Wai Cheuk +7

This paper explores the use of unlearning methods for training data attribution (TDA) in music generative models trained on large-scale datasets. TDA aims to identify which specific training data points contributed the most to the generation of a particular output from a specific model. This is crucial in the context of AI-generated music, where proper recognition and credit for original artists are generally overlooked. By enabling white-box attribution, our work supports a fairer system for acknowledging artistic contributions and addresses pressing concerns related to AI ethics and copyright. We apply unlearning-based attribution to a text-to-music diffusion model trained on a large-scale dataset and investigate its feasibility and behavior in this setting. To validate the method, we perform a grid search over different hyperparameter configurations and quantitatively evaluate the consistency of the unlearning approach. We then compare attribution patterns from unlearning with non-counterfactual approaches. Our findings suggest that unlearning-based approaches can be effectively adapted to music generative models, introducing large-scale TDA to this domain and paving the way for more ethical and accountable AI systems for music creation.

If a product deviates from its desired properties in the injection moulding process, its root cause analysis can be aided by models that relate the input machine settings with the output quality characteristics. The machine learning models tested in the quality prediction are mostly black boxes; therefore, no direct explanation of their prognosis is given, which restricts their applicability in the quality control. The previously attempted explainability methods are either restricted to tree-based algorithms only or do not emphasize on the fact that some explainability methods can lead to wrong root cause identification of a product's deviation from its desired properties. This study first shows that the interactions among the multiple input machine settings do exist in real experimental data collected as per a central composite design. Then, the model-agnostic explainable AI methods are compared for the first time to show that different explainability methods indeed lead to different feature impact analysis in injection moulding. Moreover, it is shown that the better feature attribution translates to the correct cause identification and actionable insights for the injection moulding process. Being model agnostic, explanations on both random forest and multilayer perceptron are performed for the cause analysis, as both models have the mean absolute percentage error of less than 0.05% on the experimental dataset.