pwc-archive/papers-with-abstracts huggingface dataset:
Systematic Hazard Analysis for Frontier AI using STPA
Authors: Simon Mylius
Date: 2025-06-02 00:00:00

All of the frontier AI companies have published safety frameworks where they define capability thresholds and risk mitigations that determine how they will safely develop and deploy their models. Adoption of systematic approaches to risk modelling, based on established practices used in safety-critical industries, has been recommended, however frontier AI companies currently do not describe in detail any structured approach to identifying and analysing hazards. STPA (Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis) is a systematic methodology for identifying how complex systems can become unsafe, leading to hazards. It achieves this by mapping out controllers and controlled processes then analysing their interactions and feedback loops to understand how harmful outcomes could occur (Leveson & Thomas, 2018). We evaluate STPA's ability to broaden the scope, improve traceability and strengthen the robustness of safety assurance for frontier AI systems. Applying STPA to the threat model and scenario described in 'A Sketch of an AI Control Safety Case' (Korbak et al., 2025), we derive a list of Unsafe Control Actions. From these we select a subset and explore the Loss Scenarios that lead to them if left unmitigated. We find that STPA is able to identify causal factors that may be missed by unstructured hazard analysis methodologies thereby improving robustness. We suggest STPA could increase the safety assurance of frontier AI when used to complement or check coverage of existing AI governance techniques including capability thresholds, model evaluations and emergency procedures. The application of a systematic methodology supports scalability by increasing the proportion of the analysis that could be conducted by LLMs, reducing the burden on human domain experts.
AIMSCheck: Leveraging LLMs for AI-Assisted Review of Modern Slavery Statements Across Jurisdictions
Authors: Adriana Eufrosina Bora, Akshatha Arodi, Duoyi Zhang, Jordan Bannister, Mirko Bronzi, Arsene Fansi Tchango, Md Abul Bashar, Richi Nayak, Kerrie Mengersen
Date: 2025-06-02 00:00:00

Modern Slavery Acts mandate that corporations disclose their efforts to combat modern slavery, aiming to enhance transparency and strengthen practices for its eradication. However, verifying these statements remains challenging due to their complex, diversified language and the sheer number of statements that must be reviewed. The development of NLP tools to assist in this task is also difficult due to a scarcity of annotated data. Furthermore, as modern slavery transparency legislation has been introduced in several countries, the generalizability of such tools across legal jurisdictions must be studied. To address these challenges, we work with domain experts to make two key contributions. First, we present AIMS.uk and AIMS.ca, newly annotated datasets from the UK and Canada to enable cross-jurisdictional evaluation. Second, we introduce AIMSCheck, an end-to-end framework for compliance validation. AIMSCheck decomposes the compliance assessment task into three levels, enhancing interpretability and practical applicability. Our experiments show that models trained on an Australian dataset generalize well across UK and Canadian jurisdictions, demonstrating the potential for broader application in compliance monitoring. We release the benchmark datasets and AIMSCheck to the public to advance AI-adoption in compliance assessment and drive further research in this field.
Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen
Authors: Catarina Moreira, Anna Palatkina, Dacia Braca, Dylan M. Walsh, Peter J. Leihn, Fang Chen, Nina C. Hubig
Date: 2025-06-02 00:00:00
Tasks: Systematic Literature Review

As AI regulations around the world intensify their focus on system safety, contestability has become a mandatory, yet ill-defined, safeguard. In XAI, "contestability" remains an empty promise: no formal definition exists, no algorithm guarantees it, and practitioners lack concrete guidance to satisfy regulatory requirements. Grounded in a systematic literature review, this paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI, directly aligned with stakeholder requirements and regulatory mandates. We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical architectures, legal processes, and organizational workflows. To operationalize our framework, we propose the Contestability Assessment Scale, a composite metric built on more than twenty quantitative criteria. Through multiple case studies across diverse application domains, we reveal where state-of-the-art systems fall short and show how our framework drives targeted improvements. By converting contestability from regulatory theory into a practical framework, our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
Selecting for Less Discriminatory Algorithms: A Relational Search Framework for Navigating Fairness-Accuracy Trade-offs in Practice
Authors: Hana Samad, Michael Akinwumi, Jameel Khan, Christoph Mügge-Durum, Emmanuel O. Ogundimu
Date: 2025-06-02 00:00:00
Tasks: Fairness, Hyperparameter Optimization, Model Selection

As machine learning models are increasingly embedded into society through high-stakes decision-making, selecting the right algorithm for a given task, audience, and sector presents a critical challenge, particularly in the context of fairness. Traditional assessments of model fairness have often framed fairness as an objective mathematical property, treating model selection as an optimization problem under idealized informational conditions. This overlooks model multiplicity as a consideration--that multiple models can deliver similar performance while exhibiting different fairness characteristics. Legal scholars have engaged this challenge through the concept of Less Discriminatory Algorithms (LDAs), which frames model selection as a civil rights obligation. In real-world deployment, this normative challenge is bounded by constraints on fairness experimentation, e.g., regulatory standards, institutional priorities, and resource capacity. Against these considerations, the paper revisits Lee and Floridi (2021)'s relational fairness approach using updated 2021 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, and proposes an expansion of the scope of the LDA search process. We argue that extending the LDA search horizontally, considering fairness across model families themselves, provides a lightweight complement, or alternative, to within-model hyperparameter optimization, when operationalizing fairness in non-experimental, resource constrained settings. Fairness metrics alone offer useful, but insufficient signals to accurately evaluate candidate LDAs. Rather, by using a horizontal LDA search approach with the relational trade-off framework, we demonstrate a responsible minimum viable LDA search on real-world lending outcomes. Organizations can modify this approach to systematically compare, evaluate, and select LDAs that optimize fairness and accuracy in a sector-based contextualized manner.
VirnyFlow: A Design Space for Responsible Model Development
Authors: Denys Herasymuk, Nazar Protsiv, Julia Stoyanovich
Date: 2025-06-02 00:00:00
Tasks: AutoML, Bayesian Optimization, Multi-Armed Bandits

Developing machine learning (ML) models requires a deep understanding of real-world problems, which are inherently multi-objective. In this paper, we present VirnyFlow, the first design space for responsible model development, designed to assist data scientists in building ML pipelines that are tailored to the specific context of their problem. Unlike conventional AutoML frameworks, VirnyFlow enables users to define customized optimization criteria, perform comprehensive experimentation across pipeline stages, and iteratively refine models in alignment with real-world constraints. Our system integrates evaluation protocol definition, multi-objective Bayesian optimization, cost-aware multi-armed bandits, query optimization, and distributed parallelism into a unified architecture. We show that VirnyFlow significantly outperforms state-of-the-art AutoML systems in both optimization quality and scalability across five real-world benchmarks, offering a flexible, efficient, and responsible alternative to black-box automation in ML development.
AI Data Development: A Scorecard for the System Card Framework
Authors: Tadesse K. Bahiru, Haileleol Tibebu, Ioannis A. Kakadiaris
Date: 2025-06-02 00:00:00
Tasks: Fairness

Artificial intelligence has transformed numerous industries, from healthcare to finance, enhancing decision-making through automated systems. However, the reliability of these systems is mainly dependent on the quality of the underlying datasets, raising ongoing concerns about transparency, accountability, and potential biases. This paper introduces a scorecard designed to evaluate the development of AI datasets, focusing on five key areas from the system card framework data development life cycle: data dictionary, collection process, composition, motivation, and pre-processing. The method follows a structured approach, using an intake form and scoring criteria to assess the quality and completeness of the data set. Applied to four diverse datasets, the methodology reveals strengths and improvement areas. The results are compiled using a scoring system that provides tailored recommendations to enhance the transparency and integrity of the data set. The scorecard addresses technical and ethical aspects, offering a holistic evaluation of data practices. This approach aims to improve the quality of the data set. It offers practical guidance to curators and researchers in developing responsible AI systems, ensuring fairness and accountability in decision support systems.
The Coming Crisis of Multi-Agent Misalignment: AI Alignment Must Be a Dynamic and Social Process
Authors: Florian Carichon, Aditi Khandelwal, Marylou Fauchard, Golnoosh Farnadi
Date: 2025-06-01 00:00:00

This position paper states that AI Alignment in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) should be considered a dynamic and interaction-dependent process that heavily depends on the social environment where agents are deployed, either collaborative, cooperative, or competitive. While AI alignment with human values and preferences remains a core challenge, the growing prevalence of MAS in real-world applications introduces a new dynamic that reshapes how agents pursue goals and interact to accomplish various tasks. As agents engage with one another, they must coordinate to accomplish both individual and collective goals. However, this complex social organization may unintentionally misalign some or all of these agents with human values or user preferences. Drawing on social sciences, we analyze how social structure can deter or shatter group and individual values. Based on these analyses, we call on the AI community to treat human, preferential, and objective alignment as an interdependent concept, rather than isolated problems. Finally, we emphasize the urgent need for simulation environments, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks that allow researchers to assess alignment in these interactive multi-agent contexts before such dynamics grow too complex to control.
Will Agents Replace Us? Perceptions of Autonomous Multi-Agent AI
Authors: Nikola Balic
Date: 2025-06-01 00:00:00
Tasks: AI Agent

Autonomous multi-agent AI systems are poised to transform various industries, particularly software development and knowledge work. Understanding current perceptions among professionals is crucial for anticipating adoption challenges, ethical considerations, and future workforce development. This study analyzes responses from 130 participants to a survey on the capabilities, impact, and governance of AI agents. We explore expected timelines for AI replacing programmers, identify perceived barriers to deployment, and examine beliefs about responsibility when agents make critical decisions. Key findings reveal three distinct clusters of respondents. While the study explored factors associated with current AI agent deployment, the initial logistic regression model did not yield statistically significant predictors, suggesting that deployment decisions are complex and may be influenced by factors not fully captured or that a larger sample is needed. These insights highlight the need for organizations to address compliance concerns (a commonly cited barrier) and establish clear governance frameworks as they integrate autonomous agents into their workflows.
Translate With Care: Addressing Gender Bias, Neutrality, and Reasoning in Large Language Model Translations
Authors: Pardis Sadat Zahraei, Ali Emami
Date: 2025-05-31 00:00:00
Tasks: Language Modeling, Language Modelling, Large Language Model, Machine Translation, Translation

Addressing gender bias and maintaining logical coherence in machine translation remains challenging, particularly when translating between natural gender languages, like English, and genderless languages, such as Persian, Indonesian, and Finnish. We introduce the Translate-with-Care (TWC) dataset, comprising 3,950 challenging scenarios across six low- to mid-resource languages, to assess translation systems' performance. Our analysis of diverse technologies, including GPT-4, mBART-50, NLLB-200, and Google Translate, reveals a universal struggle in translating genderless content, resulting in gender stereotyping and reasoning errors. All models preferred masculine pronouns when gender stereotypes could influence choices. Google Translate and GPT-4 showed particularly strong bias, favoring male pronouns 4-6 times more than feminine ones in leadership and professional success contexts. Fine-tuning mBART-50 on TWC substantially resolved these biases and errors, led to strong generalization, and surpassed proprietary LLMs while remaining open-source. This work emphasizes the need for targeted approaches to gender and semantic coherence in machine translation, particularly for genderless languages, contributing to more equitable and accurate translation systems.
Machine vs Machine: Using AI to Tackle Generative AI Threats in Assessment
Authors: Mohammad Saleh Torkestani, Taha Mansouri
Date: 2025-05-31 00:00:00
Tasks: Specificity

This paper presents a theoretical framework for addressing the challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education assessment through a machine-versus-machine approach. Large language models like GPT-4, Claude, and Llama increasingly demonstrate the ability to produce sophisticated academic content, traditional assessment methods face an existential threat, with surveys indicating 74-92% of students experimenting with these tools for academic purposes. Current responses, ranging from detection software to manual assessment redesign, show significant limitations: detection tools demonstrate bias against non-native English writers and can be easily circumvented, while manual frameworks rely heavily on subjective judgment and assume static AI capabilities. This paper introduces a dual strategy paradigm combining static analysis and dynamic testing to create a comprehensive theoretical framework for assessment vulnerability evaluation. The static analysis component comprises eight theoretically justified elements: specificity and contextualization, temporal relevance, process visibility requirements, personalization elements, resource accessibility, multimodal integration, ethical reasoning requirements, and collaborative elements. Each element addresses specific limitations in generative AI capabilities, creating barriers that distinguish authentic human learning from AI-generated simulation. The dynamic testing component provides a complementary approach through simulation-based vulnerability assessment, addressing limitations in pattern-based analysis. The paper presents a theoretical framework for vulnerability scoring, including the conceptual basis for quantitative assessment, weighting frameworks, and threshold determination theory.
The Hidden Language of Harm: Examining the Role of Emojis in Harmful Online Communication and Content Moderation
Authors: YuHang Zhou, Yimin Xiao, Wei Ai, Ge Gao
Date: 2025-05-31 00:00:00

Social media platforms have become central to modern communication, yet they also harbor offensive content that challenges platform safety and inclusivity. While prior research has primarily focused on textual indicators of offense, the role of emojis, ubiquitous visual elements in online discourse, remains underexplored. Emojis, despite being rarely offensive in isolation, can acquire harmful meanings through symbolic associations, sarcasm, and contextual misuse. In this work, we systematically examine emoji contributions to offensive Twitter messages, analyzing their distribution across offense categories and how users exploit emoji ambiguity. To address this, we propose an LLM-powered, multi-step moderation pipeline that selectively replaces harmful emojis while preserving the tweet's semantic intent. Human evaluations confirm our approach effectively reduces perceived offensiveness without sacrificing meaning. Our analysis also reveals heterogeneous effects across offense types, offering nuanced insights for online communication and emoji moderation.
Wide Reflective Equilibrium in LLM Alignment: Bridging Moral Epistemology and AI Safety
Authors: Matthew Brophy
Date: 2025-05-31 00:00:00

As large language models (LLMs) become more powerful and pervasive across society, ensuring these systems are beneficial, safe, and aligned with human values is crucial. Current alignment techniques, like Constitutional AI (CAI), involve complex iterative processes. This paper argues that the Method of Wide Reflective Equilibrium (MWRE) -- a well-established coherentist moral methodology -- offers a uniquely apt framework for understanding current LLM alignment efforts. Moreover, this methodology can substantively augment these processes by providing concrete pathways for improving their dynamic revisability, procedural legitimacy, and overall ethical grounding. Together, these enhancements can help produce more robust and ethically defensible outcomes. MWRE, emphasizing the achievement of coherence between our considered moral judgments, guiding moral principles, and relevant background theories, arguably better represents the intricate reality of LLM alignment and offers a more robust path to justification than prevailing foundationalist models or simplistic input-output evaluations. While current methods like CAI bear a structural resemblance to MWRE, they often lack its crucial emphasis on dynamic, bi-directional revision of principles and the procedural legitimacy derived from such a process. While acknowledging various disanalogies (e.g., consciousness, genuine understanding in LLMs), the paper demonstrates that MWRE serves as a valuable heuristic for critically analyzing current alignment efforts and for guiding the future development of more ethically sound and justifiably aligned AI systems.
MythTriage: Scalable Detection of Opioid Use Disorder Myths on a Video-Sharing Platform
Authors: Hayoung Jung, Shravika Mittal, Ananya Aatreya, Navreet Kaur, Munmun De Choudhury, Tanushree Mitra
Date: 2025-05-30 00:00:00
Tasks: Language Modeling, Language Modelling, Large Language Model, Misinformation

Understanding the prevalence of misinformation in health topics online can inform public health policies and interventions. However, measuring such misinformation at scale remains a challenge, particularly for high-stakes but understudied topics like opioid-use disorder (OUD)--a leading cause of death in the U.S. We present the first large-scale study of OUD-related myths on YouTube, a widely-used platform for health information. With clinical experts, we validate 8 pervasive myths and release an expert-labeled video dataset. To scale labeling, we introduce MythTriage, an efficient triage pipeline that uses a lightweight model for routine cases and defers harder ones to a high-performing, but costlier, large language model (LLM). MythTriage achieves up to 0.86 macro F1-score while estimated to reduce annotation time and financial cost by over 76% compared to experts and full LLM labeling. We analyze 2.9K search results and 343K recommendations, uncovering how myths persist on YouTube and offering actionable insights for public health and platform moderation.
The World As Large Language Models See It: Exploring the reliability of LLMs in representing geographical features
Authors: Omid Reza Abbasi, Franz Welscher, Georg Weinberger, Johannes Scholz
Date: 2025-05-30 00:00:00

As large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, questions about their trustworthiness in delivering factual information have become increasingly important. This concern also applies to their ability to accurately represent the geographic world. With recent advancements in this field, it is relevant to consider whether and to what extent LLMs' representations of the geographical world can be trusted. This study evaluates the performance of GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash in three key geospatial tasks: geocoding, elevation estimation, and reverse geocoding. In the geocoding task, both models exhibited systematic and random errors in estimating the coordinates of St. Anne's Column in Innsbruck, Austria, with GPT-4o showing greater deviations and Gemini 2.0 Flash demonstrating more precision but a significant systematic offset. For elevation estimation, both models tended to underestimate elevations across Austria, though they captured overall topographical trends, and Gemini 2.0 Flash performed better in eastern regions. The reverse geocoding task, which involved identifying Austrian federal states from coordinates, revealed that Gemini 2.0 Flash outperformed GPT-4o in overall accuracy and F1-scores, demonstrating better consistency across regions. Despite these findings, neither model achieved an accurate reconstruction of Austria's federal states, highlighting persistent misclassifications. The study concludes that while LLMs can approximate geographic information, their accuracy and reliability are inconsistent, underscoring the need for fine-tuning with geographical information to enhance their utility in GIScience and Geoinformatics.
Feeling Guilty Being a c(ai)borg: Navigating the Tensions Between Guilt and Empowerment in AI Use
Authors: Konstantin Aal, Tanja Aal, Vasil Navumau, David Unbehaun, Claudia Müller, Volker Wulf, Sarah Rüller
Date: 2025-05-30 00:00:00

This paper explores the emotional, ethical and practical dimensions of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into personal and professional workflows, focusing on the concept of feeling guilty as a 'c(ai)borg' - a human augmented by AI. Inspired by Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto, the study explores how AI challenges traditional notions of creativity, originality and intellectual labour. Using an autoethnographic approach, the authors reflect on their year-long experiences with AI tools, revealing a transition from initial guilt and reluctance to empowerment through skill-building and transparency. Key findings highlight the importance of basic academic skills, advanced AI literacy and honest engagement with AI results. The c(ai)borg vision advocates for a future where AI is openly embraced as a collaborative partner, fostering innovation and equity while addressing issues of access and agency. By reframing guilt as growth, the paper calls for a thoughtful and inclusive approach to AI integration.