Searcharxiv⌕ Search

subject

cs.CY

cs.CY: explore 271 source-linked works published from 2013 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: arxiv. Collection updated 2026-09-16. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

arXiv2026

Cite or Decline: A Strict Course-Grounded Chatbot for STEM Lecture Videos

Recorded lecture videos, often enhanced with search and summarization features, are a standard study resource. However, students cannot easily ask course specific questions or verify answers against an instructor's lecture. We report a semester-long deployment of VideoPoints platform with a retrieval-augmented chatbot that answers from course lecture materials and returns timestamped citations. The chatbot retrieves only from the active course, uses chapter summaries to guide transcript ranking, and returns clickable timestamped citations. Students used it for quick lookups and exam review. Across 833 messages, 70.5% included citations, none crossed a course boundary, and when no lecture evidence matched, the chatbot usually declined rather than answering. Among the users, citations were the most consistently useful feature, while practice-question generation was the strongest unmet request. We also evaluated the design on the real-world test split of EduVidQA, a public multimodal benchmark for lecture-video question answering. Our design improved correct-lecture retrieval by 6.3 percentage points over dense-only retrieval. Together, the results show that effective deployment depends on course isolation, supported citations, and alignment with students' study practices.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Accurate in space, unreliable in time: how LLMs represent national cultural change

Assessments of cultural alignment have become an important part of the development and improvement of large language models (LLMs). However, the majority of the evaluations treat culture as a single snapshot, investigating only whether a model represents a society accurately at the current time. Research in cultural psychology shows that cultural values change at different rates and directions over time. Therefore, a "culturally aware" model should capture not only where a culture is today but also how it has changed over time. We examine this missing dimension of cultural awareness using more than two decades of the World Values Survey data. We compare the cultural trajectories of 40 countries with the trajectories produced by four state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs on the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map. Our findings show that while models generally place countries close to their most recent surveyed positions, these representations tend to lag several years behind that position. They also capture only part of the magnitude of the observed change, introduce movement where little occurred, and rarely reproduce reversals in countries' trajectories. These findings point to temporal flattening and suggest that snapshot accuracy can give an incomplete picture of cultural awareness in LLMs and have implications for model evaluation, representational harms, and the governance of culturally aware AI systems.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act

The systematic assessment of AI systems is increasingly vital as these technologies enter high-stakes domains. To address this, the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act introduces AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS): supervised environments where AI systems can be tested under the oversight of Competent Authorities (CAs), balancing innovation with compliance, particularly for startups and SMEs. Yet significant challenges remain: assessment methods are fragmented, tests lack standardisation, and feedback loops between developers and regulators are weak. This paper operationalises the AIRS lifecycle. We map the sandbox journey into 29 concrete activities, from pre-participation guidance through application, preparation, participation, exit, and post-participation monitoring, and we distinguish between a Core AIRS centred on regulatory oversight and an Extended AIRS that additionally embeds structured technical testing through an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS). From this mapping we derive 15 infrastructural and governance requirements that an AITS must satisfy, each linked to the activities it supports and, for high-risk systems, to the provider obligations set out in Articles 9-15 of the AI Act. The framework aims to address multiple stakeholders: CAs gain structured workflows for applying legal obligations; technical experts can integrate robust evaluation methods; and AI providers access a transparent pathway to compliance. We conclude by outlining the Sandbox Configurator, an open-source framework intended to instantiate AITS environments from these requirements, and by discussing how a shared technical foundation can support a scalable and innovation-friendly European infrastructure for trustworthy AI governance.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

What and Whose Knowledge? Measuring Epistemic Diversity in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary knowledge sources, yet their epistemic diversity - defined as the diversity of real-world claims in their outputs - has never been measured. Low epistemic diversity would pose a risk of knowledge collapse as homogeneous LLMs mediate a shrinking in the range of accessible information over time. The dominant paradigm is that overall LLM diversity is low, but this is always with respect to a single point in time, with no reference baseline or consideration for variation across countries. We address this gap in knowledge by performing the first systematic study of epistemic diversity in LLMs across time and cultural context, testing 27 LLMs on 155 topics covering 12 countries, resulting in 1.7M responses and 70M individual claims. We find that epistemic diversity has increased substantially over the past three years, a positive counter to recent diversity pessimism. However, despite progress, we find that every system is less diverse than a search baseline. This gap is not uniform: RAG can improve diversity, while large models are counterintuitively less diverse than smaller ones. Moreover, LLM parametric knowledge systematically reflects English over local-language knowledge for country specific topics. Together, these results demonstrate that while progress on epistemic diversity is tangible, it is insufficient and unevenly distributed.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

HugAgent: A Human Simulation Benchmark for Individual-Level Reasoning

Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now approximate human responses at scale, they remain tuned to population-level consensus, often erasing the individuality of reasoning styles and belief trajectories. To advance the vision of more human-like reasoning in machines, we introduce HugAgent (HUman-Grounded AGENT Benchmark), which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data. The benchmark evaluates whether a model can predict a specific person's behavioral responses and the underlying reasoning dynamics in out-of-distribution scenarios, given partial evidence of their prior views. HugAgent combines structured questionnaires with semi-structured think-aloud interviews to collect ecologically valid belief states, belief updates, and reasoning traces from human participants. Our experiments reveal a clear asymmetry: models recover a person's belief state from their own context reasonably well, but struggle to predict belief updates under intervention. Cross-person and cross-domain controls trace this gap to associative matching within a topic rather than identity-consistent reasoning, suggesting that progress requires better-calibrated change detection, not simply more context. We scope the benchmark to self-reported belief reasoning in three policy domains: healthcare, surveillance, and zoning. The benchmark, along with its complete data collection pipeline and companion chatbot, is open-sourced as HugAgent (https://github.com/jajamoa/HugAgent) and TraceYourThinking (https://github.com/jajamoa/trace-your-thinking).

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Adaptive Data Collection for Latin-American Community-sourced Evaluation of Stereotypes (LACES)

The evaluation of societal biases in NLP models is critically hindered by a geo-cultural gap, This leaves regions such as Latin America severely underserved, making it impossible to adequately assess or mitigate the perpetuation of harmful regional stereotypes in language technologies. This paper presents LACES, a stereotype association dataset, for 15 Latin American countries. This dataset includes 4,789 stereotype associations manually created and annotated by 83 participants. The dataset was developed through targeted community partnerships across Latin America. Additionally, in this paper, we propose a novel adaptive data collection methodology that uniquely integrates the sourcing of new stereotype entries and the validation of existing data within a single, unified workflow. This approach results in a resource with more unique stereotypes than previous static collection methods, enabling a more efficient stereotype collection. The paper further supports the quality of LACES by demonstrating reduced efficacy of debiasing methods on this dataset in comparison to existing popular stereotype benchmarks.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Retrofitters, pragmatists and activists: Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision-making

This paper examines the role of public interest litigation in promoting accountability for AI and automated decision-making (ADM) in Australia. Since ADM regulation faces political and geopolitical headwinds, effective governance will have to rely on the enforcement of existing laws. Drawing on interviews with Australian public interest litigators, technology policy activists, and technology law scholars, the paper positions public interest litigation as part of a larger ecosystem for transparency, accountability and justice with respect to ADM. The paper explores the tactics and strategies of what one participant described as 'retrofitting' old laws to ADM. These go beyond creative legal argumentation, to encompass practices of community-building, collaboration on theories of change, canny selection of clients and causes of action, and aligning the interests of stakeholders in litigation. Naturally, the paper also contends with the limits of these strategies, and of the Australian legal system. Where limits are capable of being overcome, the paper presents findings on urgent needs: the enabling institutional arrangements without which effective litigation and accountability will falter. The paper is relevant to law and technology scholars, individuals and groups harmed by ADM, public interest litigators and technology lawyers, civil society and advocacy organisations, and policymakers.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Individualized Algorithmic Advice as a Strategic Signal on Competitive Markets

As algorithms increasingly mediate competitive decision-making, their influence extends beyond individual outcomes to shaping strategic market dynamics. In our experiment, we examined how algorithmic advice affects human behavior in a classic economic game with a unique, non-collusive, and analytically traceable equilibrium. Participants (N = 129) played a Cournot quantity competition with equilibrium-aligned or strategically biased algorithmic recommendations. While individualized equilibrium advice supported stable convergence, collusively downward-biased advice led to sustained underproduction and supracompetitive profits - hallmarks of tacit collusion. Participants' quantities converged faster and more consistently toward individualized than collective equilibrium advice, potentially due to an objective quality advantage or greater perceived ownership of the former. These findings demonstrate that algorithmic advice can function as a strategic signal, shaping coordination even without explicit communication. The results echo real-world concerns about algorithmic collusion and underscore the need for careful design and oversight of algorithmic decision-support systems in competitive environments.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Audit Me If You Can: Query-Efficient Active Fairness Auditing of Black-Box LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic biases across demographic groups. Auditing is proposed as an accountability tool for black-box LLM applications, but suffers from resource-intensive query access. We conceptualise auditing as uncertainty estimation over a target fairness metric and introduce BAFA, the Bounded Active Fairness Auditor for query-efficient auditing of black-box LLMs. BAFA maintains a version space of surrogate models consistent with queried scores and computes uncertainty intervals for fairness metrics (e.g., $Δ$ AUC) via constrained empirical risk minimisation. Active query selection narrows these intervals to reduce estimation error. We evaluate BAFA on two standard fairness dataset case studies: \textsc{CivilComments} and \textsc{Bias-in-Bios}, comparing against stratified sampling, power sampling, and ablations. BAFA achieves target error thresholds with up to 40$\times$ fewer queries than stratified sampling (e.g., 144 vs 5,956 queries at $\varepsilon=0.02$ for \textsc{CivilComments}) for tight thresholds, demonstrates substantially better performance over time, and shows lower variance across runs. These results suggest that active sampling can reduce resources needed for independent fairness auditing with LLMs, supporting continuous model evaluations.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Bathtubs, Boundaries, and Sandboxes: AI Regulatory Learning under Legal Uncertainty

Effective regulation of AI is a defining policy challenge, driven by their integration into all aspects of society. To remain responsive to their rapid development and emergent properties, policymakers across the globe rely on high-level principles and abstract legal requirements. Yet, while this flexibility supports future-proofing human-centred regulations and aligning them with socio-ethical values, it also causes legal uncertainty downstream as developers, companies, and auditors struggle with translating these abstract requirements into verifiable technical requirements. Using the AI Act as an example, this paper draws on Coleman's bathtub to analyse the regulatory learning space in AI governance. It argues that legal uncertainty cannot be fully reduced ex ante and that, within reasonable bounds, it is also necessary for regulatory learning because it creates the space in which boundary negotiation over socio-technical meaning can occur. Building on this analysis, the paper shows how boundary objects and boundary negotiating artifacts help explain the translation of legal requirements into operational practice. By examining technical sandbox frameworks, it further identifies concrete properties that technical infrastructures must possess to function effectively as boundary negotiation artifacts in AI assessment. The paper concludes that legal certainty remains the long-term aim, but that premature closure of regulatory instruments risks undermining the learning processes needed for adaptive governance.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The Axiom of Consent: Authorization, Friction, and Multi-Agent Coordination

Coordination research collapses four objects: operative control, authorization, a model-derived friction score, and observed outcomes. The Axiom of Consent is a stake-weighted unanimity principle; majority and supermajority thresholds are explicit relaxations, not versions of the axiom. Decision loci are structural facts, whereas authorization and legitimacy require normative and measurement premises. Alignment, calibrated stakes, and information deficit are candidate coordinates, and F = sigma(1 + epsilon)/(1 + alpha) is a phenomenological ansatz. The Replicator-Optimization Mechanism supplies a conditional persistence interface: irreducibility suffices for its finite, static, positive-fitness continuous-time Perron result; primitivity is required only for the corresponding discrete-time power convergence, and the componentwise ranking is narrower. Neither persistence result derives authorization. A resource-allocation instantiation specifies an identification contract but observes no authorization acts or effective voice. Its exploratory MARL companion uses target-vector correlation and observation noise as narrow proxy treatments, not measures of general alignment or information deficit. Under that proxy and reward-gap design, the composite loses to an independent-effects model and a feasible-centred frozen crossing yields the opposite interaction direction. Cooperative target correlation lowers the gap under shared-state contention; separable IQL is structurally invariant and separable VDN is a non-detection. Paired partial sharing modulates the gradient without establishing an exact dose law or endpoint equivalence. Target support changes opposition and residual-policy conclusions. The surviving contribution is an authorization architecture and measurement discipline, not a universal friction law.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Risk-Adjusted Harm Scoring for Automated Red Teaming for LLMs in Financial Services

Existing LLM safety evaluations rely on binary attack-success rates and domain-agnostic taxonomies, leaving regulated Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance (BFSI) deployments exposed to failures elicited through legally or professionally plausible framing. We introduce RAHS (Risk-Adjusted Harm Score), a risk-sensitive metric jointly capturing disclosure severity, disclaimer mitigation, and inter-judge agreement, and FinRedTeamBench, a 989-prompt benchmark spanning seven BFSI risk areas and 34 sub-categories mapped to regulatory frameworks. Evaluation uses an ensemble of three heterogeneous LLM judges, validated against human experts, and an adaptive multi-turn red-teaming pipeline. On nine open-weight models, RAHS preserves separation under near-ceiling ASR, ranking is stable under hyperparameter sweeps, and multi-turn pressure drives not only more jailbreaks but more operationally severe disclosures, exposing failure modes that single-turn, domain-agnostic evaluations cannot reveal.

q-fin.CP↗
arXiv2026

Overreliance on AI in Information-seeking from Video Content

The ubiquity of multimedia content is reshaping online information spaces, particularly in social media environments. At the same time, search is being rapidly transformed by generative AI, with large language models (LLMs) routinely deployed as intermediaries between users and multimedia content to retrieve and summarize information. Despite their growing influence, the impact of LLM inaccuracies and potential vulnerabilities on multimedia information-seeking tasks remains largely unexplored. We investigate how generative AI affects accuracy, efficiency, and confidence in information retrieval from videos. We conduct an experiment with around 900 participants on 8,000+ video-based information-seeking tasks, comparing behavior across three conditions: (1) access to videos only, (2) access to videos with LLM-based AI assistance, and (3) access to videos with a deceiving AI assistant designed to provide false answers. We find that AI assistance increases accuracy by 3-7% when participants viewed the relevant video segment, and by 27-35% when they did not. Efficiency increases by 10% for short videos and 25% for longer ones. However, participants tend to over-rely on AI outputs, resulting in accuracy drops of up to 32% when interacting with the deceiving AI. Alarmingly, self-reported confidence in answers remains stable across all three conditions. Our findings expose fundamental safety risks in AI-mediated video information retrieval.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Vision-Language Models Suppress Female Representations Under Ambiguous Input

Alignment teaches vision-language models (VLMs) to avoid expressing demographic biases, and when gender is clearly visible they largely succeed. Far less is known about ambiguous inputs (a worker in full gear, a figure seen from behind), cases common in practice yet rarely studied. We find that minimal prompting pressure exposes occupation-gender defaults when prompting ambiguous input images, with models collapsing to male even for strongly female-stereotyped occupations. But do these outputs reflect what models actually encode internally? We introduce LALS (Latent Association Leaning Score), a zero-shot metric that projects visual-token activations into the model's text-embedding space to measure concept associations per token and layer. Across 15 occupations, over 800 gender-ambiguous images, and four VLMs, internal representations and outputs often become systematically decoupled: models often encode a female association internally yet output male. Layer-wise analysis reveals an asymmetric filter: male signal amplifies end-to-end while female signal peaks mid-network and is suppressed before generation. A color ablation shows that culturally loaded visual cues such as clothing color further modulate these internal associations.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Online Safety Regulation Increases Attention to VPNs: Privacy Implications of the UK Online Safety Act

Governments worldwide are increasingly regulating digital platforms to reduce online harms, but access restrictions can alter user behaviour and create new privacy risks. The UK Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, rolled out in phases - illegal-content enforcement in March 2025 and mandatory age verification in July 2025. We analyse Reddit discourse across VPN and UK Politics communities and conduct a privacy-policy risk analysis of 69 VPN services. We find that the behavioural response is concentrated at the July 2025 deadline, when platforms hosting pornographic content were required to deploy age checks. UK VPN search interest on Google increased by 147% at this deadline. UK-resident users' VPN-subreddit activity increased by 145%. Their regulatory- or privacy-related VPN posts and comments rose by 1,265% at this deadline. UK Politics communities show the same concentration at a larger magnitude, with OSA-related political discourse rising by 1481%. These effects were far smaller or statistically indistinguishable from pre-existing trends at Royal Assent and the illegal-harms enforcement deadline, indicating that the deployed age checks drove the response. Users primarily frame this response around privacy, surveillance, and distrust of age-verification intermediaries rather than access-seeking, with near-zero genuine pro-OSA sentiment across two independent classifiers. Several users noted that those least able to pay for reputable VPNs are most likely to turn to free services that monetise their data. Search attention increases across all disclosed privacy-risk categories, with no evidence of a shift toward higher-risk VPN providers. Crucially, after a full year, this attention is still elevated, arguing against a temporary news-cycle reaction. Thus, online safety regulation may create secondary privacy costs without disproportionately directing attention toward higher-risk VPNs.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Prompt to Purchase: How AI Brand Recommendations Move Consumers on the Open Web

When a conversational assistant recommends a brand to a user with no recent observed engagement, that user's same-name Google search rises $+4.3$ percentage points (pp) [$3.1$, $5.5$], visits to the brand's own site $+2.4$ pp [$1.4$, $3.5$], and brand-specific retailer-page visits $+1.0$ pp [$0.3$, $1.7$] over matched backward placebos. Recovering that estimate is the work. The mention creates a brand exposure no web log attributes to the assistant, and the naive all-mention funnel that seems to measure it is confounded: many mentions are incidental references to brands the user already uses ("your Netflix download"), whose downstream visits are that existing customer's own behavior and surface as a brand-specific pre-trend. We measure off-platform response on a panel that joins opt-in clickstream to the same users' ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini conversations, and isolate the effect with a pre-trend event study, a stance classifier, non-customer conditioning, and a within-response same-category control: incidental name-drops then move behavior far less ($+1.8/+1.1/+0.3$), and the named brand moves far more than unnamed same-category brands in the same response. The downstream path is mostly search-mediated and reaches both own sites and retailer pages, with a destination mix that tracks baseline brand-directed behavior rather than redirecting toward either. The design is observational and we do not observe transactions, so retail is purchase-adjacent. Standard referrer-based and last-click measurement miss this upstream exposure: assistants move observably-unengaged users into open-web brand navigation along a path attributed elsewhere -- an acquisition touchpoint at the head of the customer journey that journey models and last-click attribution do not see.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Generativism: Toward a Learning Theory for the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence

The four dominant learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism show significant conceptual limitations as generative artificial intelligence (AI) proliferates in educational settings. These frameworks were formulated before the emergence of AI systems capable of generating, synthesizing, and reasoning about knowledge. This article critically examines each learning theory and identifies assumptions challenged by the affordances of generative AI. Drawing on research in distributed cognition, extended mind, human-AI collaboration, AI literacy, cognitive offloading, and metacognition, the article proposes Generativism as a learning theory for the generative AI age. Generativism posits that learning increasingly occurs through the iterative co-construction of knowledge between human learners and AI systems. The proposed framework is organized around four constructs (epistemic partnership, distributed agency, generative literacy, and adaptive metacognition) and four principles specifying the relations among them. The framework offers a foundation for rethinking instructional design, learning, assessment, and expertise development in contexts where generative AI plays an integral role in cognition.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Helpfulness: A Teaching-over-Solving Diagnostic for Measuring Educational Impact in LLM Tutors

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

cs.AI↗
Compare source metadata on this page
WorkPublishedSource identifierSource
Cite or Decline: A Strict Course-Grounded Chatbot for STEM Lecture Videos2026-09-012609.01846arxiv
Accurate in space, unreliable in time: how LLMs represent national cultural change2026-09-012609.01902arxiv
Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act2026-08-312509.25256arxiv
What and Whose Knowledge? Measuring Epistemic Diversity in Large Language Models2026-08-312510.04226arxiv
HugAgent: A Human Simulation Benchmark for Individual-Level Reasoning2026-08-312510.15144arxiv
Adaptive Data Collection for Latin-American Community-sourced Evaluation of Stereotypes (LACES)2026-08-312510.24958arxiv
Retrofitters, pragmatists and activists: Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision-making2026-08-312511.03211arxiv
Individualized Algorithmic Advice as a Strategic Signal on Competitive Markets2026-08-312511.09454arxiv
Audit Me If You Can: Query-Efficient Active Fairness Auditing of Black-Box LLMs2026-08-312601.03087arxiv
Bathtubs, Boundaries, and Sandboxes: AI Regulatory Learning under Legal Uncertainty2026-08-312601.04094arxiv
The Axiom of Consent: Authorization, Friction, and Multi-Agent Coordination2026-08-312601.06692arxiv
Risk-Adjusted Harm Scoring for Automated Red Teaming for LLMs in Financial Services2026-08-312603.10807arxiv
Overreliance on AI in Information-seeking from Video Content2026-08-312603.19843arxiv
Vision-Language Models Suppress Female Representations Under Ambiguous Input2026-08-312605.31556arxiv
Online Safety Regulation Increases Attention to VPNs: Privacy Implications of the UK Online Safety Act2026-08-312606.05273arxiv
From Prompt to Purchase: How AI Brand Recommendations Move Consumers on the Open Web2026-08-312606.10907arxiv
Generativism: Toward a Learning Theory for the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence2026-08-312606.12441arxiv
Beyond Helpfulness: A Teaching-over-Solving Diagnostic for Measuring Educational Impact in LLM Tutors2026-08-312606.16206arxiv

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.