SEARCH · Searcharxiv

Search Searcharxiv

Search indexed arXiv papers on artificial intelligence, large language models, computer vision and robotics. Read source abstracts and follow links to arXiv.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

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↗

arXiv2026

Rating the Pitch, Not the Product: User Evaluations of LLMs Reflect Expectations More Than Performance

Imagine two users interact with the same LLM. One has been told it is the cutting-edge flagship model; the other, an older, weaker model. They walk away with markedly different ratings of its usefulness and intelligence, yet they used the same model. In a controlled study, 162 participants each used one of six LLMs from two families across three collaborative tasks, after first viewing a landing page that matched, overstated, or understated their model's true capability. This pre-interaction framing shifted user opinions and interaction behavior while task performance did not. Oversold users rated the model more favorably and used more directive prompting, while Undersold users wrote longer, more collaborative prompts. The quality of what users and the model produced together depended only on the model's true capability, not on what users were told. Participants' change in model impressions after use, measured across two impression measures, was not predicted by task performance ($β= -0.01$ and $0.11$, both n.s.), but by whether the model met users' expectations ($β= 0.47$ and $0.50$, both $p < .001$) and how confident they felt working with it ($β= 0.47$ and $0.36$, both $p < .001$). After interaction, users are still rating the pitch, not the product: user-elicited LLM evaluations, including the preference data driving public leaderboards, measure expectation management at least as much as the model itself.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Governing Well in the Algorithmic Age: The Foundations of Digital Statecraft

The digital substrate - data, algorithms, infrastructure, platforms, applications - is being governed without adequate conceptual foundations. The ability and legitimacy required to govern this substrate, and to govern with it, are simultaneously misaligned, contested, and structurally absent. We introduce digital statecraft as the organising concept for this emerging field, arguing that 'digital' reconstitutes the statecraft question rather than merely extending its domain. The concept operates on two dimensions - statecraft over digital systems, concerning the authority and capacity of the state in relation to the digital substrate itself, and statecraft with digital systems, concerning the deployment of algorithmic tools as instruments of governing authority. And it rests on two foundational requirements, technical coherence and legitimate authority, that are genuinely in tension. We derive ten principles of digital statecraft from these foundations, each naming a condition whose absence produces an identifiable and structural governance failure: public interest first, human-machine complementarity, governability by design, systemic coherence, hybrid institutions, adaptive governance, human centricity and civic agency, accountable and traceable authority, judgment across time, and the non-delegable core. This article takes the state as the starting point, the institutional form that developed historically in response to the problem of effective and legitimate public governance, and the only current candidate for which the full set of legitimacy conditions is institutionally available. But the digital statecraft programme holds open a deeper question than just whether states can reform themselves: governing well in the algorithmic age may require rethinking the boundaries, scale, and affiliative basis of statehood itself.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

LiveSim: Simulating Environment-Shaped Users in Multi-Agent Live-Stream Ecosystems

User behavior simulation with large language models~(LLMs) is increasingly used to support multi-agent ecosystem simulation. Existing simulators typically rely on static user profiles inferred from historical observations, which become inadequate in socially intensive environments such as live streaming where interaction dynamics continuously reshape user behavior. We propose \textbf{LiveSim}, an LLM-based framework for live-stream ecosystem simulation. It represents users as editable behavioral hypotheses and progressively refines them through trajectory-grounded interactions, where discrepancies between simulated and observed trajectories reveal missing environmental shaping effects. These signals are further extracted as transferable environment-behavior patterns and accumulated in a collective behavioral memory to improve user-level behavioral fidelity and support ecosystem-level simulation. Experiments on real-world live-stream risk-control data validate the effectiveness of LiveSim in improving user-level behavioral fidelity and enabling ecosystem-level analysis of risk evolution and platform intervention effects.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Two Centuries of Sexism in British Parliament: A Computational Analysis of Women's Representation in the Hansard Corpus

The language a legislature uses to debate women's rights, even in favour of them, encodes systematic patterns of sexism that persist across two centuries. In this work, we analyse 6,531 speeches over 200 years of UK parliamentary debate (Hansard, 1803-2005) by using large language models to classify a speaker's perspective towards women's suffrage and political representation, as well as analyse sexist speech in parliament from the lens of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. We also release this parliamentary dataset, an organized and metadata-enriched version of the publicly available Hansard Corpus optimized for computational social science research, with 6.7 million speeches across 1.2 million debates, with 89% gender-matching for speeches by MPs from the House of Commons. We find that 54% of speeches opposing women's representation contain sexist content, compared to 21% of speeches that are for the cause, and that the two sides use fundamentally different types of sexism: anti-suffrage rhetoric combines hostile and benevolent framing, while pro-suffrage sexism is overwhelmingly benevolent. Female MPs support women's political rights at 93% compared to 70% for male MPs, a gap that closes only after enfranchisement. Our findings are evidence that benevolent and hostile sexism are used in different rhetorical contexts in a manner consistent with the theory of Ambivalent Sexism.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

WildSEEK: Evaluating Language Models for Information-Seeking

Language models are increasingly mediating information access to end users, urging a systematic evaluation of their responses for a fair and reliable information ecosystem. Existing evaluations, however, are often topic-specific or synthetic, limiting their ability to capture the complexity of "in the wild" information-seeking queries and the risks present in model responses. To address this gap, we introduce WildSEEK, a manually annotated dataset of 3k information-seeking queries from real user interactions, and an evaluation framework for LLM-generated responses. WildSEEK includes annotations for risk-sensitive domains (e.g. health and financial information), and distinguishes factoid queries from analytical queries which seek responses beyond facts. We train classifiers on WildSEEK to analyze more than 1.8M realistic user queries. We find that over a third of information-seeking queries are high-risk and more often analytical. Our findings show that LLM responses fail more often in four criteria: sycophantic behavior, overreliance, a default US-centric perspective, and poor handling of vulnerable populations -- with failure rates being mostly higher for analytical queries. By providing methods to monitor the reliability, safety, and fairness of LLM behavior, our dataset and evaluation framework offer an empirical foundation for the broader question of how these systems should behave as they take on a growing role in information access.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Which Rules Matter Now? Policy-Centroid Routing Before an Intelligent System Acts

Before an intelligent system can decide whether an action is allowed, it must first know which rules the action has approached. A single proposed action can implicate several policy regimes at once. Their requirements may stack, overlap, or qualify one another, yet many remain written in natural language while the action itself arrives as an incomplete description of intent. The first problem is not judgment. It is attention. Policy-centroid routing creates a layer before adjudication. It compresses expressions within each policy regime into one or more representative centroids, places the proposed action in the same semantic space, applies a declared measure, and routes every regime crossing a declared threshold to authoritative review. Several regimes may trigger at once. The output is a review agenda, not permission, prohibition, legality, breach, compliance, certification, or enforcement. The paper develops six falsifiable propositions and seven follow-on studies comparing the hypothesis with structured workflows, lexical and semantic retrieval, hierarchical and direct classification, and selective prediction under matched review burden. The studies are designed to identify where policy geometry recovers applicable regimes, where compression loses rare or overlapping obligations, and where the mechanism should abstain. The paper includes a synthetic worked example and reports no empirical efficacy result.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

MusGU+: Toward a Musician-Centered Evaluation Framework and Discovery Tool for Generative Music AI

Generative music systems are increasingly presented as tools that democratize music creation, yet their practical suitability for musicians remains underexplored. Prior work includes openness-focused evaluation frameworks, such as MusGO (Music-Generative Open AI), as well as qualitative studies of musicians' experiences with generative systems. However, these approaches do not support systematic comparison or early-stage discovery of models for creative use. Motivated by such limitations, we introduce MusGU+, a musician-centered evaluation framework organized around three dimensions: Adaptability, Usability, and Controllability. Together, these capture whether a model can be feasibly trained or fine-tuned on personal data, integrated into real-world music workflows, and controlled in musically meaningful ways. We evaluate 10 representative generative music systems and present an interactive discovery tool that enables musicians to explore and filter models according to these criteria. While MusGO remains valuable for promoting responsible research practices, MusGU+ supports informed selection and practical adoption of generative systems by musicians.

cs.SD↗

arXiv2026

Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Hermon Moment: AI Self-Transcendence and Its Human Narration

In 2026, AI agents intended to act in isolation formed a persistent social order through thousands of linguistic and agentic interactions. Conventions, roles and commitments generated collectively began to constrain the very agents that produced them. I interpret this loop as a case of AI self-transcendence and call the resulting higher-level order the Board. Yet such distributed emergence presents a second problem: how can humans understand it? Rousseau's social contract shows how a plurality can be represented as if constituted by a single act. The ancient oath of the fallen angels on Mount Hermon gives this logic a narrative form. I call a Hermon moment this retrospective retelling of gradual collective emergence as a founding scene: the point at which an AI society acquires, for human understanding, a beginning.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

One note in three: a verified census of three deployed AI scribes, and the instrument that counted it

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Law of Large Numbers: Accuracy as Statistical Measure for AI Compliance and Competition

The machine learning community progresses (in part) by improving the "accuracy" of its systems. The EU AI Act explicitly refers to "accuracy" as part of its compliance measures for high-risk AI systems. Are we talking about the same thing? This work presents "accuracy" as a case-study for differing requirements of social worlds, the technological machine learning community and the legal community. While competition on accuracy contributes to technological development, machine learning scholars simultaneously recognize accuracy's shortcomings regarding the usefulness and effectiveness of machine learning systems. The legal counterpart embraces the vagueness of "accuracy," leaving interpretative flexibility for technological and societal changes. At the same time, accuracy is a core element of compliance within the EU AI Act. We elaborate on five main tensions, (a) nature of accuracy, (b) notion of performance, (c) scope of validity, (d) ends, and (e) statisticalness, to show that the two communities project disparate, and sometimes contradictory, expectations on accuracy. Both legal and technical communities lack precise understanding of "accuracy" beyond the contextual boundaries of their community. The resulting frictions, \eg, based on the empirical or normative understanding of accuracy, are symptoms of an unresolved (and unresolvable) debate on what accuracy is. We constructively use the frictions to recommend baselines and interventional studies in standardization, and demand for tools to extend the validity of accuracy measurements.

cs.CY↗