arXiv subjects

Avijit Ghosh

Publications and source records attributed to Avijit Ghosh.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Open Technical Problems in Open-Weight AI Model Risk Management

Frontier AI models with openly available weights are steadily becoming more powerful and widely adopted. However, compared to proprietary models, open-weight models pose different opportunities and challenges for effective risk management. For example, they allow for more open research and testing. However, managing their risks is also challenging because they can be modified arbitrarily, used without oversight, and spread irreversibly. Currently, there is limited research on safety tooling specific to open-weight models. Addressing these gaps will be key to both realizing their benefits and mitigating their harms. In this paper, we present 16 open technical challenges for open-weight model safety involving training data, training algorithms, evaluations, deployment, and ecosystem monitoring. We conclude by discussing the nascent state of the field, emphasizing that openness about research, methods, and evaluations -- not just weights -- will be key to building a rigorous science of open-weight model risk management.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI

Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety. Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what or where to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders. As a result, good-faith reporters duplicate effort by submitting many different forms, and recipients lack standardized, triage-ready information. We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators, identifying five recurring design challenges spanning discoverability, scope, information collection, coordination, and guidance for strict-liability cases. Building on this analysis and feedback from 49 experts across 32 organizations representing developers, security researchers, and ecosystem coordinators, we introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems. FLARE-AI streamlines flaw report creation by collecting triage-relevant information through conditional logic and early classification, then enables optional dissemination of standardized, machine-readable reports to multiple developers, coordinators, and incident registries from a single submission. By lowering barriers to reporting AI flaws and improving interoperability across stakeholders, FLARE-AI helps break down silos and accelerate remediation across the AI ecosystem.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Position: Evaluations of AI Moral Reasoning Still Miss Half of the Picture

Recent work on evaluating the moral competence of large language models (LLMs) has focused primarily on what we call the moral value problem, i.e., whether model outputs align with human moral values. In contrast, the moral norm problem, i.e., whether models can identify and correctly apply context-sensitive moral norms, remains underexplored. We posit that this imbalance stems from the field's reliance on descriptive ethics frameworks, such as Moral Foundations Theory and Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which emphasize value representation over normative application. We review existing benchmarks and evaluation methods, and show that they cluster heavily around the value problem, while discussion regarding normative ethics remains underrepresented. We identify three crucial gaps: (i) the absence of high-quality ground-truth data for moral norms and their applications, (ii) insufficient evaluation of intermediate reasoning processes, and (iii) limited attention to the identification of morally relevant features in context. Subsequently, we propose a research agenda that includes the development of standardized formal representations for normative theories, the construction of expert-annotated datasets capturing norm application, and evaluation protocols that explicitly distinguish between values-level and norms-level competence. Our goal is to encourage a more systematic study of normative reasoning in LLMs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

What if AI systems weren't chatbots?

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism to measure model progress and guide deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Economies of Open Intelligence: Tracing Power & Participation in the Model Ecosystem

Since 2019, the Hugging Face Model Hub has been the primary global platform for sharing open weight AI models. By releasing a dataset of the complete history of weekly model downloads (June 2020-August 2025) alongside model metadata, we provide the most rigorous examination to-date of concentration dynamics and evolving characteristics in the open model economy. Our analysis spans 851,000 models, over 200 aggregated attributes per model, and 2.2B downloads. We document a fundamental rebalancing of economic power: US open-weight industry dominance by Google, Meta, and OpenAI has declined sharply in favor of unaffiliated developers, community organizations, and, as of 2025, Chinese industry, with DeepSeek and Qwen models potentially heralding a new consolidation of market power. We identify statistically significant shifts in model properties, a 17X increase in average model size, rapid growth in multimodal generation (3.4X), quantization (5X), and mixture-of-experts architectures (7X), alongside concerning declines in data transparency, with open weights models surpassing truly open source models for the first time in 2025. We expose a new layer of developer intermediaries that has emerged, focused on quantizing and adapting base models for both efficiency and artistic expression. To enable continued research and oversight, we release the complete dataset with an interactive dashboard for real-time monitoring of concentration dynamics and evolving properties in the open model economy.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor remain uneven. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of social impact evaluation reporting, examining 186 first-party release reports and 248 third-party evaluation sources, supplemented by developer interviews. We find a stark division of labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and declining in areas like environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators provide broader, more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, only developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, costs, and infrastructure, yet interviews reveal these disclosures are deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or compliance. Current practices leave major gaps in assessing societal impacts, underscoring the need for policies that mandate developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure for aggregating third-party evaluations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

AI for Scientific Discovery is a Social Problem

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly applied to scientific research, but its benefits remain unevenly distributed across different communities and disciplines. While technical challenges such as limited data, fragmented standards, and unequal access to computational resources are already well known, social and institutional factors are often the primary constraints. Narratives emphasizing autonomous "AI scientists," the underrecognition of data and infrastructure work, misaligned incentives, and gaps between domain experts and machine learning researchers all limit the impact of AI on scientific discovery. Four interconnected challenges are highlighted in this paper: community coordination, the misalignment of research priorities with upstream needs, data fragmentation, and infrastructure inequities. We argue that addressing these challenges requires not only technical innovations but also intentional community-building efforts, cross-disciplinary education, shared benchmarks, and accessible infrastructure. We call for reframing AI for science as a collective social project, where sustainable collaboration and equitable participation are treated as prerequisites for achieving technical progress.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Documenting Patterns of Exoticism of Marginalized Populations within Text-to-Image Generators

A significant majority of AI fairness research studying the harmful outcomes of GAI tools have overlooked non-Western communities and contexts, necessitating a stronger coverage in this vein. We extend our previous work on exoticism (Ghosh et al., 2024) of 'Global South' countries from across the world, as depicted by GAI tools. We analyze generated images of individuals from 13 countries -- India, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Egypt, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Sudan, Libya, Venezuela, Colombia, Indonesia, Honduras, and Mexico -- performing everyday activities (such as being at home, going to work, getting groceries, etc.), as opposed to images for the same activities being performed by persons from 3 'Global North' countries -- USA, UK, Australia. While outputs for 'Global North' demonstrate a difference across images and people clad in activity-appropriate attire, individuals from 'Global South' countries are depicted in similar attire irrespective of the performed activity, indicative of a pattern of exoticism where attire or other cultural features are overamplified at the cost of accuracy. We further show qualitatively-analyzed case studies that demonstrate how exoticism is not simply performed upon 'Global South' countries but also upon marginalized populations even in Western contexts, as we observe a similar exoticization of Indigenous populations in the 'Global North', and doubly upon marginalized populations within 'Global South' countries. We document implications for harm-aware usage patterns of such tools, and steps towards designing better GAI tools through community-centered endeavors.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Scaling Law for Token Efficiency in LLM Fine-Tuning Under Fixed Compute Budgets

We introduce a scaling law for fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) under fixed compute budgets that explicitly accounts for data composition. Conventional approaches measure training data solely by total tokens, yet the number of examples and their average token length -- what we term \emph{dataset volume} -- play a decisive role in model performance. Our formulation is tuned following established procedures. Experiments on the BRICC dataset \cite{salavati2024reducing} and subsets of the MMLU dataset \cite{hendrycks2021measuringmassivemultitasklanguage}, evaluated under multiple subsampling strategies, reveal that data composition significantly affects token efficiency. These results motivate refined scaling laws for practical LLM fine-tuning in resource-constrained settings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Catastrophic Liability: Managing Systemic Risks in Frontier AI Development

As artificial intelligence systems grow more capable and autonomous, frontier AI development poses potential systemic risks that could affect society at a massive scale. Current practices at many AI labs developing these systems lack sufficient transparency around safety measures, testing procedures, and governance structures. This opacity makes it challenging to verify safety claims or establish appropriate liability when harm occurs. Drawing on liability frameworks from nuclear energy, aviation software, cybersecurity, and healthcare, we propose a comprehensive approach to safety documentation and accountability in frontier AI development.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

"It's not a representation of me": Examining Accent Bias and Digital Exclusion in Synthetic AI Voice Services

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) speech generation and voice cloning technologies have produced naturalistic speech and accurate voice replication, yet their influence on sociotechnical systems across diverse accents and linguistic traits is not fully understood. This study evaluates two synthetic AI voice services (Speechify and ElevenLabs) through a mixed methods approach using surveys and interviews to assess technical performance and uncover how users' lived experiences influence their perceptions of accent variations in these speech technologies. Our findings reveal technical performance disparities across five regional, English-language accents and demonstrate how current speech generation technologies may inadvertently reinforce linguistic privilege and accent-based discrimination, potentially creating new forms of digital exclusion. Overall, our study highlights the need for inclusive design and regulation by providing actionable insights for developers, policymakers, and organizations to ensure equitable and socially responsible AI speech technologies.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI

The widespread deployment of general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems introduces significant new risks. Yet the infrastructure, practices, and norms for reporting flaws in GPAI systems remain seriously underdeveloped, lagging far behind more established fields like software security. Based on a collaboration between experts from the fields of software security, machine learning, law, social science, and policy, we identify key gaps in the evaluation and reporting of flaws in GPAI systems. We call for three interventions to advance system safety. First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers in order to ease the process of submitting, reproducing, and triaging flaws in GPAI systems. Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs, borrowing from bug bounties, with legal safe harbors to protect researchers. Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports across the many stakeholders who may be impacted. These interventions are increasingly urgent, as evidenced by the prevalence of jailbreaks and other flaws that can transfer across different providers' GPAI systems. By promoting robust reporting and coordination in the AI ecosystem, these proposals could significantly improve the safety, security, and accountability of GPAI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Protecting Human Cognition in the Age of AI

The rapid adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) is significantly reshaping human cognition, influencing how we engage with information, think, reason, and learn. This paper synthesizes existing literature on GenAI's effects on different aspects of human cognition. Drawing on Krathwohl's revised Bloom's Taxonomy and Dewey's conceptualization of reflective thought, we examine the mechanisms through which GenAI is affecting the development of different cognitive abilities. We focus on novices, such as students, who may lack both domain knowledge and an understanding of effective human-AI interaction. Accordingly, we provide implications for rethinking and designing educational experiences that foster critical thinking and deeper cognitive engagement.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Stop treating `AGI' as the north-star goal of AI research

The AI research community plays a vital role in shaping the scientific, engineering, and societal goals of AI research. In this position paper, we argue that focusing on the highly contested topic of `artificial general intelligence' (`AGI') undermines our ability to choose effective goals. We identify six key traps -- obstacles to productive goal setting -- that are aggravated by AGI discourse: Illusion of Consensus, Supercharging Bad Science, Presuming Value-Neutrality, Goal Lottery, Generality Debt, and Normalized Exclusion. To avoid these traps, we argue that the AI research community needs to (1) prioritize specificity in engineering and societal goals, (2) center pluralism about multiple worthwhile approaches to multiple valuable goals, and (3) foster innovation through greater inclusion of disciplines and communities. Therefore, the AI research community needs to stop treating `AGI' as the north-star goal of AI research.

cs.CY↗