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 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs in response to persuasive arguments, as humans do, remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view. Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.079 to 0.178). Content-level analyses show that humans and LLMs agree on the strongest persuasion cues but diverge on finer ones: humans are more swayed by novel content and assertive language, whereas LLMs favor topical similarity and surface-level formatting. At the level of persuasion strategy, LLMs underweight emotional appeals and overweight credibility signals relative to humans, while the type of proposition under debate exerts no measurable effect on the degree of divergence. Furthermore, switching from first-person role-playing to third-person observation shifts all models toward greater resistance to persuasion, with the effect varying across persuasion strategies and textual features. These findings highlight the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and humans process persuasive discourse. Our code is available at https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/LLM-belief-update-cmv.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Verification-Time Dependency on a Disappearing Evaluator

AI governance and assurance often assume that a consequential model-mediated decision can be reconstructed or tested after the fact. That assumption may fail when the evaluator that produced the decision is no longer accessible in the same version and execution context. This paper develops three verification-time constructs derived from Execution Governance (EG) 3.0: Decision-State Commitment, Independent Verifiability, and Counterfactual Auditability. Independent reprocessing of released Study 2 artifacts reproduces two original within-family behavioural comparisons: 52.0% modal-decision reversal for Llama 3.1 8B versus Llama 3.3 70B (26/50) and 30.0% for GPT-OSS 20B versus GPT-OSS 120B (15/50). The corrected baseline establishes that these are within-family comparisons, not provider-established succession. Post-hoc re-pairing against Groq-designated migration paths yields 64.0% and 38.0% reversal, but these figures remain descriptive because the cross-family invocation parameters were asymmetric. A 22-event retirement census independently recomputes to median 16.45 months, mean 18.72 months, range 3.9-40.3 months, with 17/22 intervals below 24 months, while also showing that evaluator availability can differ by service surface. The joint contribution is an operational verification-time protocol and optional Verification-Time Preservation Package (VTPP) specifying what evidence to bind at authorization time, what a separately trusted verifier can substantiate later, how stability and paired counterfactual tests should be calibrated, and which semantic checks remain beyond JSON Schema validity. The protocol is downstream and non-authorizing: it does not alter the EG Core Formula, add a seventh live condition, or state jurisdiction-specific legal admissibility.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Language of the Question Selects the Market: Query Language and Exit IP as Separable Factors in Commercial Recommendations from a Generative Search Interface

When a generative search interface answers a commercial question, which market's products it names is decided before the model reasons about the products. We report a controlled probe of 234 runs against the logged-out ChatGPT web interface and the OpenAI API, collected on 29 and 30 August 2026 across four exit countries and six query languages, with six identical runs per cell. Three results. First, the top recommendation is unstable: it changed across six identical runs on four of six prompts, and that rate was identical in the browser interface and in the API with web search both enabled and disabled, so instability is a property of the system and not of the surface. Second, query language, and not location, decides whether local suppliers appear at all. Where the query language matched the country, a global brand won 1 of 24 runs; asked in English on the same connections, local brands took 0 of 6 runs in Estonia and Turkiye. Third, language and location are separable and act on different things: holding the query language fixed and moving only the exit IP moves the market whose brands are named while the answer stays in the query language. We show this on two unrelated pairs, Turkish asked from Berlin and Russian asked from Tallinn, and in both the answer names the resident country's suppliers. A minority language occupies a middle tier: Russian asked from Estonia names an Estonian supplier in 4 of 6 runs and a global one in all six, where Estonian names a local supplier in every run and English names none. A negative control in a second category, coded with the same instrument, shows no language effect at all, and disconfirms our own expectation: that category does have domestic suppliers and none was named in any language, which points the explanation at whether a category is nationally regulated rather than at whether it is nationally supplied.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

AMINA: The Inclusive and Accountable AI for Marginalized Immigrant Nonprofit Assistance

Immigrant-led nonprofit groups, particularly those operating in politically sensitive contexts, face exclusion from formal registries and digital platforms. This paper reports a three-phase mixed-methods study with Iranian immigrant nonprofit practitioners: 27 semi-structured interviews, a co-design session, and 7 evaluation and feedback interviews on a prototyped AI assistant, AMINA. Our findings highlight how legitimacy barriers, capacity gaps, and politically charged misinformation constrain nonprofit operations. We translate these insights into design goals for an inclusive nonprofit AI assistant: support for everyday group operations, recognition of informal nonprofit efforts, proactive countering of misinformation, and multilingual, accessible interaction. User evaluations show AMINAs potential to reduce reporting burdens and foster transparency through proactive reminders, and catalyze collaboration across dispersed networks. We contribute to CSCW and HCI by characterizing the cooperative work of transnational immigrant nonprofits, extending scholarship on informality and misinformation, and demonstrating how AI can act as a collaborative partner that strengthens, rather than displaces, the human connections at the core of nonprofit ecosystems, while also posing major risks.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

From Detection to Refusal: Safer LLMs via Circuit-Guided Weight Scaling

Despite extensive alignment efforts, Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to generating unsafe content under adversarial prompting, yet the internal mechanisms by which safety behaviors are implemented remain poorly understood. We study LLM safety from a mechanistic interpretability perspective and characterize a multi-stage *safety circuit* that organizes refusal behavior, consisting of (i) $\textbf{Harmful Detection Heads}$ that respond to harmful inputs, (ii) $\textbf{Safety Neurons}$ that mediate and stabilize safety signals in the residual stream, and (iii) $\textbf{Refusal Heads}$ that translate these signals into safe response generation. Using targeted attention-head and neuron-level interventions, we provide causal evidence consistent with this circuit organization, showing that suppressing upstream Harmful Detection Heads disrupts downstream refusal behavior and that safety neurons mediate this interaction. We validate that this decomposition recurs across multiple LLM architectures and adversarial attack settings, and use simple, architecture-preserving weight scaling as a mechanistic probe to test its functional relevance. Across six LLMs, circuit-guided scaling improves safety rates under attacks by 26.5%, while incurring only a 1.7% accuracy drop across four standard benchmarks. Overall, our results support a circuit-level interpretation of LLM safety and suggest that mechanistic abstractions can reveal stable and transferable patterns underlying aligned behavior.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval

Artificial intelligence (AI) hiring tools have revolutionized resume screening, and large language models (LLMs) have the potential to do the same. However, given the biases which are embedded within LLMs, it is unclear whether they can be used in this scenario without disadvantaging groups based on their protected attributes. In this work, we investigate the possibilities of using LLMs in a resume screening setting via a document retrieval framework that simulates job candidate selection. Using that framework, we then perform a resume audit study to determine whether a selection of Massive Text Embedding (MTE) models are biased in resume screening scenarios. We simulate this for nine occupations, using a collection of over 500 publicly available resumes and 500 job descriptions. We find that the MTEs are biased, significantly favoring White-associated names in 85.1\% of cases and female-associated names in only 11.1\% of cases, with a minority of cases showing no statistically significant differences. Further analyses show that Black males are disadvantaged in up to 100\% of cases, replicating real-world patterns of bias in employment settings, and validate three hypotheses of intersectionality. We also find an impact of document length as well as the corpus frequency of names in the selection of resumes. These findings have implications for widely used AI tools that are automating employment, fairness, and tech policy.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Multimodal Large Language Models Predict Urban Safety Perception but Encode Non-Neutral Demographic Priors

Understanding how people perceive urban environments is essential for inclusive planning, yet conventional surveys are costly and difficult to scale. We investigate whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can assess perceived urban safety from street-view imagery while accounting for the observer-dependent nature of perception. Using Place Pulse 2.0, we evaluate four open and proprietary MLLMs across 56 cities under a Neutral prompt and socio-demographic personas defined by gender, age, and race or ethnicity. We also analyse the keywords generated to justify each classification. All four models display comparable zero-shot capability, with city-macro F1 scores of 65--69%, and preserve meaningful cross-city variation. However, they systematically favour the Safe class, underpredict unsafety, and compress differences between cities. Their explanations converge on a shared visual lexicon: maintenance, greenery, order, and residential character support Safe judgements, whereas deterioration, isolation, poor lighting, and limited pedestrian activity support Unsafe judgements. Persona prompting produces substantial and structured shifts while holding the image fixed. Female personas yield more Unsafe classifications than Male personas across all models; age effects are model-dependent, although Middle-aged personas generally remain closest to Neutral. Black/African American and Native American personas frequently show the largest departures, while the closest race or ethnicity match varies by model. These findings show that MLLMs can provide scalable signals of perceived urban safety, but not from a demographically neutral standpoint.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Different Demographic Cues Yield Inconsistent Conclusions About LLM Personalization and Bias

Demographic cue-based evaluation is widely used to study how large language models (LLMs) adapt their responses to signaled demographic attributes within and across groups. This approach typically relies on a single cue (e.g., names) as a proxy for group membership, implicitly treating different cues as interchangeable operationalizations of a single underlying identity-conditioned behavior. We test this assumption in realistic advice-seeking interactions spanning 14.8 million prompts, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. We find that cues for the same group induce only partially overlapping changes in model responses, yielding inconsistent conclusions about personalization, while bias conclusions are unstable, with both magnitude and direction of group differences varying across cues. We further show that these inconsistencies reflect differences in cue-group association strength and linguistic features bundled within cues that shape model responses. Together, our findings suggest that demographic conditioning in LLMs is not a cue-invariant category-level parameter but depends fundamentally on how identity is cued, reflecting responses to linguistic signals rather than stable demographic categories. We therefore call for multi-cue, mechanism-aware evaluations as a foundation for robust and interpretable claims about demographic variation in LLM responses.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

BIRDS: Characterizing and Understanding Biodiversity Impact of Large Language Model Serving

Large language model (LLM) serving creates environmental impacts beyond carbon and water, including ecosystem damage through biodiversity-related pathways. We present BIRDS, a framework for Biodiversity Impact of Request-Driven LLM Serving. BIRDS defines request-level functional units, quantifies operational and embodied biodiversity impact, and introduces Quality-Normalized Biodiversity Impact (QNBI) to jointly analyze ecological impact and response quality. Across diverse workloads, models, GPUs, and regions, BIRDS reveals that biodiversity impact accumulates at scale and exposes quality-aware serving tradeoffs. The code is available at https://github.com/TianyaoShi/BIRDS.

q-bio.OT↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Alignment: Value Diversity as a Collective Property in Multicultural Agent Systems

Multicultural multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in globally diverse settings, where different agents are grounded in different cultural backgrounds. Existing cultural evaluation focuses on value alignment: how closely a single agent matches a target culture. Yet alignment is a per-agent property and cannot reveal whether a system, taken as a whole, preserves the cultural plurality it is meant to represent. We propose value diversity as a system-level evaluation axis for multicultural agent systems, defined through the dissimilarity between culturally conditioned agents' responses on a shared value survey. Using the World Values Survey, we evaluate 19 cultures and 18 backbone models across a wide range of system configurations. We find that diversity is largely uncorrelated with alignment, indicating that the two capture complementary system properties, and that current multicultural agent systems fall substantially below human societies in value diversity. Mixed-backbone systems narrow this gap but do not close it, and the gap persists across culture compositions and agent scales. Social interaction further erodes diversity by driving agents toward consensus, and a participatory budgeting case study shows that this homogenization narrows the breadth of collective decision-making. Together, our results establish value diversity as a distinct evaluation axis for multicultural multi-agent systems and reveal a persistent homogenization tendency in current LLM-based societies. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/iNLP-Lab/MultiAgent-Diversity.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Fundamental Mathematics in the Age of AI -- The Residue, the Journey, and the Ecology

Large language models have begun refuting long-standing conjectures and solving long-open problems. The introspection this has prompted about the future of mathematical discovery is well under way, and the anxiety accompanying it legitimate -- but both, we claim, are attached to the wrong loss. What machines now produce is the countable part of mathematics -- theorems, proofs, refutations -- which was always the work's residue, not its product. The distinction is old, and not economic: a result can be taken in its finished essence, or in the operations that engendered it. The product is human understanding: not a stock of results but a collective, hard-won way of deciphering the world and acting upon it. The two are arcs of a single loop: understanding tells us where to look; looking produces the residue; and taking it up again, one journey at a time, rebuilds shared understanding. Machines are strong on the countable arc, absent from the one that feeds it. The peril is to leave the loop open. AI did not create the confusion between residue and product; it has called a bluff long on the books, driving the cost of the residue towards zero and making the scarce thing visible at last. A new instrument makes a new way of working before it makes a new result. The pressing questions are therefore institutional: who can check an announced result, whoever announces it; what work and training become for the next generation of researchers; and whether the one thing that cannot be mass-produced -- the journey that nourishes a shared understanding -- continues to be funded. Mathematics, we argue, is uniquely placed among the sciences on the first -- a proof answers to no one's permission -- and uniquely exposed on the other two: teaching cannot go on as before, and no collective position yet exists; and the journey has never had a price our institutions knew how to pay. The decision is ours.

math.HO↗

arXiv2026

Spatial-Knowledge-Graph-Grounded LLM Agents for Neighborhood Livability Evaluation

Neighborhood livability is commonly assessed with static built-environment indicators, such as facility proximity, street connectivity, and access to public space. These measures describe available opportunities but do not directly represent how residents with different mobility capacities, household roles, schedules, and care responsibilities experience the neighborhood. This paper presents a prototype framework that uses a spatial knowledge graph (KG) and large language models (LLMs) to generate and revise household schedules, followed by rule-based feasibility checking and GIS-based network materialization. The spatial KG integrates residents, residences, facilities, neighborhood context, and sampled road hubs; Graph-RAG retrieves each household's nearby spatial context, including candidate POIs and approximate walking times, for the scheduling LLM. The LLM produces structured household schedules, while rules are used for lightweight repairs and auditable feasibility checks. The LLM then revises schedules in response to identified feasibility issues. A routing module derives the actual travel paths, travel times, modes, and event histories from the road network. The resulting events support synthetic resident-agent interviews about daily convenience, travel burden, activity feasibility, and household coordination. A prototype demonstration in a Shenzhen neighborhood shows that nominal facility availability does not necessarily imply convenient access: residents with limited mobility and households with care responsibilities experience greater travel and coordination burdens. The framework offers an auditable way to connect spatial opportunity, household activity constraints, and resident-specific livability interpretation, while keeping simulated experience distinct from observed perception.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Free Speech and Artificial Intelligence

Philosophers and legal scholars are engaged in debates about the implications of artificial intelligence for freedom of expression. This paper analyzes the free speech issues raised by two distinct AI technologies: social media recommendation algorithms and conversational AI (i.e., chatbots powered by large language models). The first part shows that, through their recommendation algorithms, social media platforms control the dynamics of speech visibility in the digital public sphere, making algorithmic recommendation relevant to the philosophy of free speech. The second part turns to conversational AI. It discusses both the reasons for granting or withholding speech rights to artificial agents and users' right to receive information, which may render specific forms of chatbot regulation illegitimate. Throughout, the chapter also considers whether social media platforms or AI developers hold corporate speech rights. Its general aim is to raise rather than settle questions that arise from the rapid development of AI technologies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

How Mental Health Self-Disclosure Becomes Visible: Evidence from Eight Conditions on Reddit

People share mental health diagnoses on social media, yet how such language becomes visible around their self-disclosure, and whether community engagement tracks it, remain unexamined across conditions. We analyze 89,605 Reddit posts from 739 users across eight conditions, removing each user's diagnosis disclosure and aligning their surrounding posts to that anchor. Within the pre-disclosure year, language-visible burden was highest in the month before disclosure for six conditions, earlier for post-traumatic stress disorder and furthest from it for borderline personality disorder, and remained visible afterward rather than resolving. The theme Seeking Clinical Explanations showed the largest early-to-late difference before disclosure in five conditions, yet engagement rarely tracked what users wrote: only 9 of 360 language--engagement correlations survived correction. Disclosure is therefore a waypoint in an unevenly visible process, and we offer implications for community practice and platform design where engagement metrics do not reflect clinical need.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Why Organizational Rules Fail AI: O-I-B-A-R and the Externalization of Decision Boundaries

AI systems increasingly enter organizations through policies, procedures, playbooks, prompts, and other explicit representations of work. Yet formal descriptions often differ from situated practice, and captured know-what can omit the contextual know-how experts use when judgments are uncertain. We argue that a recurring class of organizational AI failures arises partly from a knowledge representation problem at the sociotechnical interface: the AI receives the procedure, while the organization operates on the procedure plus negative boundaries, runtime judgments, responsibility assignments, and learning history. We introduce O-I-B-A-R (OPEN, IS, BUT, ACTION, RESULT), a scaffold for externalizing these missing decision boundaries. IS records when a judgment holds. BUT records a concrete failure containing information beyond the logical negation of IS. Comparable success and failure cases are decomposed toward a minimally sufficient changing variable, which becomes a value-bearing decision dimension. A suspension represents the state in which the dimension is known but its current value is unresolved, specifying what must be measured, asked, retrieved, or escalated to a human. RESULT confirms a boundary, shifts a threshold, or exposes a new dimension. Incidents can generate new dimensions, unresolved values can define human-AI handoffs, and feedback can expand the decision space. We also identify a sociotechnical tension: durable and attributable failure histories can suppress the candor on which useful boundary knowledge depends. Externalization must therefore be designed as an organizational intervention with real costs and incentives.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

How Identity and Opinion Shape Political Sycophancy in LLMs

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly encourage users to disclose personal profiles for tailored assistance, measuring their political alignment becomes increasingly important. However, many existing benchmarks for assessing political behavior rely on closed-ended questions and do not fully capture how a model's stance may adapt to user-provided context during interaction. We introduce a framework that disentangles two distinct triggers of political sycophancy: opinion (aligning with explicit narratives) and identity (stereotyping based on demographic labels). Using 450 manually-checked political dilemmas as controlled probes, we evaluate 13 instruction-tuned LLMs. We uncover a dissociation: a model's susceptibility to explicit opinions does not necessarily predict its susceptibility to identity cues, and vice versa. When both signals are present, their effects are generally sub-additive rather than simply additive. Additionally, system-level personas primarily shift a model's baseline stance while having limited effect on the stance shift caused by user opinion or identity. Ultimately, our results suggest that LLM political stance is interactively and steerably vulnerable rather than being a fixed trait, highlighting how personalization may amplify identity- or opinion-conditioned shifts in the model's behaviors.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The relationship between professional and general ethics in generative AI

Recent years have seen a growing discrepancy in the field of AI alignment: research and policy recommendations on AI ethics tend to assume a general set of ethical values, yet proliferating practice-specific uses of AI systems on the ground - in the legal, medical and translation domains, among others - have been effectively manifesting ethics of professional practice. This article begins by outlining the reasons why general and professional ethics are increasingly conflicted in contemporary AI systems, and by surveying how the research literature attests to, but has not yet resolved, this conceptual and practical challenge. We then conceptualize the main dimensions of AI models' decision-making in areas of professional practice, emphasizing professional ethics' hierarchically structured relationship with general ethics, and elaborating on the mechanisms through which they reach an equilibrium in situational contexts that involve conflict. It is through this equilibrium, we suggest, that certain professional ethics are prioritized over others and implemented in practice. We then show how our framework can be the basis for a systematic empirical assessment of AI models' professional ethics in various domains, identifying the nuances of the models' favored ethic by examining their production in a series of similar but not identical scenarios. Finally, we propose a formulation for how to intervene in and change AI models' favored ethics in professional practices - while noting the inherent dimension of subjectivity involved in both the evaluation and implementation of professional ethics in AI models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Item-Mean Surrogates: Why Richer Persona Data Fail to Improve LLMs as Human Surrogates

LLMs are increasingly used as human surrogates, often on the premise that richer persona data could make them substitutes or exploratory tools for specific individuals. We test this premise across four datasets covering more than 400,000 participants and more than 6,000 survey items and experimental outcomes. LLMs perform well at the aggregate level: their average responses closely align with average human responses to the same items. But this success largely reflects predicting each item's average human response. Once each item's human mean is removed, LLM predictions explain only 3.05% of the remaining respondent-specific variation, far below the 53.6% human test-retest benchmark. Richer personas, model variants, and fine-tuning do not close this gap. In variance analyses, once item means are removed, the reliable remaining signal is person-by-item. It captures how a respondent departs from the mean on a particular item and is about 8.9x larger than the stable person effect. Persona data encode the respondent, but not this item-specific deviation. LLM responses also compress human response distributions, using less spread, fewer response categories, and distorted distributional shapes. We call this pattern item-mean surrogacy. Current LLM surrogates can approximate item averages, but not the distributions or respondent-specific deviations needed to replace individual humans. We propose four empirical tests for LLM-based human-surrogate claims.

cs.CL↗