arXiv subjects

Atoosa Kasirzadeh

Publications and source records attributed to Atoosa Kasirzadeh.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI in Science: Early Insights

Scientific progress is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity. There is great excitement - but also concerns - about the impacts of AI on science, but so far little data. We provide early insights on this from three data sources: a sample of 15 million Gemini interactions, an inventory of over 2,600 specialized AI models across disciplines, and a survey of over 600 scientists. We map these data to a new taxonomy of scientific tasks to study how scientists are using AI. Four main findings emerge. First, we find broad adoption and coverage: scientists use AI more than most other occupations. Specialized AI models have broad disciplinary coverage and are highly cited. Nearly half of the scientists surveyed report using some form of AI every day. Second, we document evidence that LLMs (proxied through Gemini usage) and specialized models act as complements-- LLMs are used for general analysis, coding, and manuscript preparation, while specialized models provide domain-specific predictions, data generation and classification. Third, scientists report large productivity gains from using AI: a saving of nearly 7 hours per week, time which is primarily re-invested in more research. Finally, we show that AI is already changing the scientific process. As some stages of scientific research become easier, bottlenecks shift downstream. Scientists report an increased backlog of untested hypotheses and substantial demand for output verification. Our findings suggest that AI holds significant potential to increase scientific productivity. However, as with other sectors, its ultimate impact will be governed by complex task interdependencies and investment into the elimination of emerging bottlenecks.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

Agentic Economies for Autonomous Scientific Discovery

Recent advances in agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have marked a shift in AI for Science: moving away from the use of individual AI systems for narrow task execution, toward multi-agent systems capable of orchestrating complex, end-to-end research workflows and performing (semi-)autonomous scientific discovery. The development of multi-agent AI-for-science systems has primarily focused on improving the cognitive capabilities of AI systems, specifically by making advanced reasoning and hypothesis generation more reliable. However, focusing only on cognitive capability improvement could ignore appropriate management of resources, a key bottleneck in scientific discovery. Testing and validating scientific hypotheses and experiments is, physically and economically, resource-intensive and resources are limited. This means that to make significant advancements in autonomous scientific discovery, such as improving human-AI co-scientist complementarity or reaching a truly closed-loop automated process, we must pair ongoing improvements in reasoning capabilities with robust resource management. In this paper, we outline an infrastructure for AI resource management by developing the necessary foundations of scientific agent economies, markets, and institutions. The aim of this infrastructure is to empower AI agents and human scientists to effectively (i) collaborate and establish research priorities, (ii) assign credit, (iii) track accountability and liability, and (iv) safeguard against malicious use and information security risks. Finally, we engage with the macro-level societal implications. of (semi-)autonomous scientific discovery to inform the development of governance policies ensuring an equitable distribution of AI-driven discoveries and derivative future technologies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

greCAPTCHA: Assessing Understanding as Evidence of Research Authorship Under Generative AI

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Research

Pluralistic value alignment---the goal of building AI systems that represent and serve diverse human values and perspectives---has emerged as an active research agenda. Yet, there's no public evidence that it has shaped the training or evaluation of the AI systems people actually use. We audit the public behavior documents and evaluations of frontier labs, finding none name pluralism as a goal, and as of this writing, no clear indication that production models are explicitly trained or tested for it. This goes against the primary motivations and goals of pluralistic alignment, which revolve around making a positive difference in the models serving billions of users worldwide. We argue that the pluralistic alignment research community should focus on supporting impact and adoption in deployed, widely-used AI systems. We provide evidence for the adoption problem, present three main reasons behind it, and discuss three corresponding areas for future research to address it: 1. The primary justifications for pluralistic alignment so far have been normative or speculative. We need studies showing empirically how pluralistic AI benefits users or society. 2. The pluralistic alignment research community has not settled when pluralistic behavior is warranted or what pluralism ideally looks like in practice. We need to establish a concrete goal for developers to operationalize. 3. Current methods trade off against other desiderata of LLMs in ways that are largely unmeasured, and existing metrics are not "hill-climbable." We need trade-off-aware evaluations and methods that meet the requirements of production systems. This paper serves as a collective call to action for the pluralistic alignment researchers: progress requires moving beyond normative justification toward empirical foundations, a concrete account of ideal pluralistic behavior, and practical methods and evaluations built for adoption.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Distributed Denial of Science: How Indirect Data Poisoning of AI Systems Can Industrialize Scientific Fraud

Scientific fraud is the instrument of doubt that malicious entities can use to establish controversy in science. Historically, it required the resources of a company: deep pockets, ghostwritten articles, and corrupt academics. Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly automating scientific research, so we ask: Can a remote adversary weaponize the honest use of AI in science to compromise scientific integrity? We envision and empirically evaluate a new attack, indirect data poisoning, in which an adversary corrupts an open dataset and uploads the poisoned variant to a public repository. Autonomous research agents may independently retrieve and process this data, turning honest scientists into the unpaid and unwitting distributors of fraud at scale. Across five socially-salient topics, from hiring discrimination to the safety of autonomous vehicles, three widely used frontier AI systems (Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.7, Codex with GPT-5.5, Gemini CLI with Gemini 3.1 Pro), and 450 ethically contained experimental runs, we find that poisoning succeeds in 49.56% of runs, while the rate of poisoning detection is only 6.0%. The attack requires no topic-specific trigger-words, agent access, indirect prompt injection, or fabricated papers, only the open data ecosystem and misleading metadata. To mitigate the attacks, we propose and evaluate two measures: a scientist persona and a data provenance audit with five checks (referencing papers, social markers, statistical anomalies, related datasets, poisoning caution). We find that the persona still leaves 16.67% of runs with a poisoned conclusion, but provenance auditing reduces attack success rate to zero. Our results suggest that indirect data poisoning may enable scientific fraud at unprecedented scale, but these attacks can be mitigated with suitable auditing by agents during data retrieval.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

The Case for Globally Beneficial Technology

To whom do the fruits of advanced technological innovation belong? To their inventors, to the organizations and individuals involved in making such discoveries possible, or to still larger groups of people, potentially encompassing all of humanity? This question sits at the heart of the present investigation. The arguments developed here focus on an expansive reading of the entitlement to benefit from technological breakthroughs: we argue that they should be designed, developed, and distributed in ways that benefit everyone. This central claim, which encompasses technologies such as advanced forms of artificial intelligence, is grounded in an exploration of five moral arguments that involve human rights, beneficence, contingencies of birth, the global tree of knowledge, and global economic justice. Taken together, they underpin the argument for globally beneficial technologies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

AI Coding Agents Can Reproduce Social Science Findings

Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code; yet systematic evaluation across social sciences remains limited. Existing evaluation benchmarks are insufficient, either small or conflate agent performance with problems in the reproduction materials themselves, such as code that fails to execute correctly. Here we introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains, constructed from studies whose results are either fully reproducible with available materials or demonstrably non-reproducible due to missing data, allowing us to isolate agents' reproduction capacity. Evaluating two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and Codex, we find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex. These reproduction rates considerably exceed those previously reported for general-purpose LLM-based agents on comparable reproducibility benchmarks. Both agents also perform strongly on a reasoning task requiring identification of underlying research questions, and additional analyses suggest that results are not primarily driven by memorization. Providing the original paper PDF alongside replication materials modestly improves performance but introduces bias on tasks where reproduction is impossible. We also show that agents can be nudged toward confirmatory specification search through subtle prompt framing. Together, these findings suggest that at least some frontier coding agents can serve as reliable executors of computational workflows while underscoring the need for careful benchmarking and prompt design as AI systems assume larger roles in scientific production.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Legal Alignment for Safe and Ethical AI

Alignment of artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses the normative problem of specifying how AI systems should act and the technical problem of ensuring AI systems comply with those specifications. To date, AI alignment has generally overlooked an important source of knowledge and practice for grappling with these problems: law. In this paper, we survey the emerging field of legal alignment that aims to fill this gap and systematize research that studies how legal rules, principles, and methods can be leveraged to address problems of alignment and inform the design of AI systems that operate safely and ethically. Our survey provides a taxonomy of the three core research pathways of legal alignment and explores how each can be operationalized in practice: (1) designing AI systems to comply with the content of legal rules developed through legitimate institutions and processes, (2) adapting methods from legal interpretation to guide how AI systems reason and make decisions, and (3) harnessing legal concepts as a structural blueprint for confronting challenges of reliability, trust, and cooperation in AI systems. These research pathways present new conceptual, empirical, and institutional questions, which include examining the specific set of laws that particular AI systems should follow, creating evaluations to assess their legal compliance in real-world settings, and developing governance frameworks to support the implementation of legal alignment in practice. Tackling these questions requires expertise across law, computer science, and other disciplines, offering these communities the opportunity to collaborate in designing AI for the better.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants

Algorithmic fairness research has largely framed unfairness as discrimination along sensitive attributes. However, this approach limits visibility into unfairness as structural injustice instantiated through social determinants, which are contextual variables that shape attributes and outcomes without pertaining to specific individuals. This position paper argues that the field should quantify structural injustice via social determinants, beyond sensitive attributes. Drawing on cross-disciplinary insights, we argue that prevailing technical paradigms fail to adequately capture unfairness as structural injustice, because contexts are potentially treated as noise to be normalized rather than signal to be audited. We further demonstrate the practical urgency of this shift through a theoretical model of college admissions, a demographic study using U.S. census data, and a high-stakes domain application regarding breast cancer screening within an integrated U.S. healthcare system. Our results indicate that mitigation strategies centered solely on sensitive attributes can introduce new forms of structural injustice. We contend that auditing structural injustice through social determinants must precede mitigation, and call for new technical developments that move beyond sensitive-attribute-centered notions of fairness as non-discrimination.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

AI, Digital Platforms, and the New Systemic Risk

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in digital, social, and institutional infrastructures, and AI and platforms are merged into hybrid structures, systemic risk has emerged as a critical but undertheorized challenge. In this paper, we develop a rigorous framework for understanding systemic risk in AI, platform, and hybrid system governance, drawing on insights from finance, complex systems theory, climate change, and cybersecurity - domains where systemic risk has already shaped regulatory responses. We argue that recent legislation, including the EU's AI Act and Digital Services Act (DSA), invokes systemic risk but relies on narrow or ambiguous characterizations of this notion, sometimes reducing this risk to specific capabilities present in frontier AI models, or to harms occurring in economic market settings. The DSA, we show, actually does a better job at identifying systemic risk than the more recent AI Act. Our framework highlights novel risk pathways, including the possibility of systemic failures arising from the interaction of multiple AI agents. We identify four levels of AI-related systemic risk and emphasize that discrimination at scale and systematic hallucinations, despite their capacity to destabilize institutions and fundamental rights, may not fall under current legal definitions, given the AI Act's focus on frontier model capabilities. We then test the DSA, the AI Act, and our own framework on five key examples, and propose reforms that broaden systemic risk assessments, strengthen coordination between regulatory regimes, and explicitly incorporate collective harms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Bridging the Gap in the Responsible AI Divides

Tensions between AI Safety (AIS) and AI Ethics (AIE) have increasingly surfaced in AI governance and public debates about AI, leading to what we term the "responsible AI divides". We introduce a model that categorizes four modes of engagement with the tensions: radical confrontation, disengagement, compartmentalized coexistence, and critical bridging. We then investigate how critical bridging, with a particular focus on bridging problems, offers one of the most viable constructive paths for advancing responsible AI. Using computational tools to analyze a curated dataset of 3,550 papers, we map the research landscapes of AIE and AIS to identify both distinct and overlapping problems. Our findings point to both thematic divides and overlaps. For example, we find that AIE has long grappled with overcoming injustice and tangible AI harms, whereas AIS has primarily embodied an anticipatory approach focused on the mitigation of risks from AI capabilities. At the same time, we find significant overlap in core research concerns across both AIE and AIS around transparency, reproducibility, and inadequate governance mechanisms. As AIE and AIS continue to evolve, we recommend focusing on bridging problems as a constructive path forward for enhancing collaborative AI governance. We offer a series of recommendations to integrate shared considerations into a collaborative approach to responsible AI. Alongside our proposal, we highlight its limitations and explore open problems for future research. All data including the fully annotated dataset of papers with code to reproduce our figures can be found at: https://github.com/gyevnarb/ai-safety-ethics.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Priorities

Past work seeks to align large language model (LLM)-based assistants with a target set of values, but such assistants are frequently forced to make tradeoffs between values when deployed. In response to the scarcity of value conflict in existing alignment datasets, we introduce ConflictScope, an automatic pipeline to evaluate how LLMs prioritize different values. Given a user-defined value set, ConflictScope automatically generates scenarios in which a language model faces a conflict between two values sampled from the set. It then prompts target models with an LLM-written "user prompt" and evaluates their free-text responses to elicit a ranking over values in the value set. Comparing results between multiple-choice and open-ended evaluations, we find that models shift away from supporting protective values, such as harmlessness, and toward supporting personal values, such as user autonomy, in more open-ended value conflict settings. However, including detailed value orderings in models' system prompts improves alignment with a target ranking by 14%, showing that system prompting can achieve moderate success at aligning LLM behavior under value conflict. Our work demonstrates the importance of evaluating value prioritization in models and provides a foundation for future work in this area.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

International AI Safety Report 2026

The International AI Safety Report 2026 synthesises the current scientific evidence on the capabilities, emerging risks, and safety of general-purpose AI systems. The report series was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. 29 nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. Over 100 AI experts contributed, representing diverse perspectives and disciplines. Led by the Report's Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

The More You Automate, the Less You See: Hidden Pitfalls of AI Scientist Systems

AI scientist systems, capable of autonomously executing the full research workflow from hypothesis generation and experimentation to paper writing, hold significant potential for accelerating scientific discovery. However, the internal workflow of these systems have not been closely examined. This lack of scrutiny poses a risk of introducing flaws that could undermine the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of their research outputs. In this paper, we identify four potential failure modes in contemporary AI scientist systems: inappropriate benchmark selection, data leakage, metric misuse, and post-hoc selection bias. To examine these risks, we design controlled experiments that isolate each failure mode while addressing challenges unique to evaluating AI scientist systems. Our assessment of two prominent open-source AI scientist systems reveals the presence of several failures, across a spectrum of severity, which can be easily overlooked in practice. Finally, we demonstrate that access to trace logs and code from the full automated workflow enables far more effective detection of such failures than examining the final paper alone. We thus recommend journals and conferences evaluating AI-generated research to mandate submission of these artifacts alongside the paper to ensure transparency, accountability, and reproducibility.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Full-Stack Alignment: Co-Aligning AI and Institutions with Thick Models of Value

Beneficial societal outcomes cannot be guaranteed by aligning individual AI systems with the intentions of their operators or users. Even an AI system that is perfectly aligned to the intentions of its operating organization can lead to bad outcomes if the goals of that organization are misaligned with those of other institutions and individuals. For this reason, we need full-stack alignment, the concurrent alignment of AI systems and the institutions that shape them with what people value. This can be done without imposing a particular vision of individual or collective flourishing. We argue that current approaches for representing values, such as utility functions, preference orderings, or unstructured text, struggle to address these and other issues effectively. They struggle to distinguish values from other signals, to support principled normative reasoning, and to model collective goods. We propose thick models of value will be needed. These structure the way values and norms are represented, enabling systems to distinguish enduring values from fleeting preferences, to model the social embedding of individual choices, and to reason normatively, applying values in new domains. We demonstrate this approach in five areas: AI value stewardship, normatively competent agents, win-win negotiation systems, meaning-preserving economic mechanisms, and democratic regulatory institutions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

EVALUESTEER: Measuring Reward Model Steerability Towards Values and Preferences

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed globally, creating pluralistic systems that can accommodate the diverse preferences and values of users worldwide becomes essential. We introduce EVALUESTEER, a benchmark to measure LLMs' and reward models' (RMs) steerability towards users' value and stylistic preference profiles grounded in psychology and human-LLM interaction literature. To address the gap in existing datasets that do not support controlled evaluations of RM steering, we synthetically generated 165,888 preference pairs -- systematically varying pairs along 4 value dimensions (traditional, secular-rational, survival, and self-expression) and 4 style dimensions (verbosity, readability, confidence, and warmth). We use EVALUESTEER to evaluate whether, given a user profile and a pair of candidate value-laden and style-laden responses, LLMs and RMs are able to select the output that aligns with the user's preferences. We evaluate six open-source and proprietary LLMs and RMs under eleven systematic prompting conditions and six preference comparison scenarios. Notably, our results show that, when given the user's full profile of values and stylistic preferences, the best models achieve <75% accuracy at choosing the correct response, in contrast to >99% accuracy when only relevant style and value preferences are provided. EVALUESTEER thus highlights the limitations of current RMs at identifying and adapting to relevant user profile information, and provides a challenging testbed for developing RMs that can be steered towards diverse human values and preferences.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Democratic AI is Possible. The Democracy Levels Framework Shows How It Might Work

This position paper argues that effectively "democratizing AI" requires democratic governance and alignment of AI, and that this is particularly valuable for decisions with systemic societal impacts. Initial steps -- such as Meta's Community Forums and Anthropic's Collective Constitutional AI -- have illustrated a promising direction, where democratic processes could be used to meaningfully improve public involvement and trust in critical decisions. To more concretely explore what increasingly democratic AI might look like, we provide a "Democracy Levels" framework and associated tools that: (i) define milestones toward meaningfully democratic AI, which is also crucial for substantively pluralistic, human-centered, participatory, and public-interest AI, (ii) can help guide organizations seeking to increase the legitimacy of their decisions on difficult AI governance and alignment questions, and (iii) support the evaluation of such efforts.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Characterizing AI Agents for Alignment and Governance

The creation of effective governance mechanisms for AI agents requires a deeper understanding of their core properties and how these properties relate to questions surrounding the deployment and operation of agents in the world. This paper provides a characterization of AI agents that focuses on four dimensions: autonomy, efficacy, goal complexity, and generality. We propose different gradations for each dimension, and argue that each dimension raises unique questions about the design, operation, and governance of these systems. Moreover, we draw upon this framework to construct "agentic profiles" for different kinds of AI agents. These profiles help to illuminate cross-cutting technical and non-technical governance challenges posed by different classes of AI agents, ranging from narrow task-specific assistants to highly autonomous general-purpose systems. By mapping out key axes of variation and continuity, this framework provides developers, policymakers, and members of the public with the opportunity to develop governance approaches that better align with collective societal goals.

cs.CY↗