Legal decision-making process requires the availability of comprehensive and detailed legislative background knowledge and up-to-date information on legal cases and related sentences/decisions. Legal Knowledge Graphs (KGs) would be a valuable tool to facilitate access to legal information, to be queried and exploited for the purpose, and to enable advanced reasoning and machine learning applications. Indeed, legal KGs may act as knowledge intensive component to be used by pre-dictive machine learning solutions supporting the decision process of the legal expert. Nevertheless, a few KGs can be found in the legal domain. To fill this gap, we developed a legal KG targeting legal cases of violence against women, along with clear adopted methodologies. Specifically, the paper introduces two complementary approaches for automated legal KG construction; a systematic bottom-up approach, customized for the legal domain, and a new solution leveraging Large Language Models. Starting from legal sentences publicly available from the European Court of Justice, the solutions integrate structured data extraction, ontology development, and semantic enrichment to produce KGs tailored for legal cases involving violence against women. After analyzing and comparing the results of the two approaches, the developed KGs are validated via suitable competency questions. The obtained KG may be impactful for multiple purposes: can improve the accessibility to legal information both to humans and machine, can enable complex queries and may constitute an important knowledge component to be possibly exploited by machine learning tools tailored for predictive justice.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to handle complex decision-making tasks, yet their ability to perform structured resource allocation remains underexplored. Evaluating their reasoning is also difficult due to data contamination and the static nature of existing benchmarks. We present a dual-purpose framework leveraging Participatory Budgeting (PB) both as (i) a practical setting for LLM-based resource allocation and (ii) an adaptive benchmark for evaluating their reasoning capabilities. We task LLMs with selecting project subsets under feasibility (e.g., budget) constraints via three prompting strategies: greedy selection, direct optimization, and a hill-climbing-inspired refinement. We benchmark LLMs' allocations against a utility-maximizing oracle. Interestingly, we also test whether LLMs can infer structured preferences from natural-language voter input or metadata, without explicit votes. By comparing allocations based on inferred preferences to those from ground-truth votes, we evaluate LLMs' ability to extract preferences from open-ended input. Our results underscore the role of prompt design and show that LLMs hold promise for mechanism design with unstructured inputs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive action sequence prediction capabilities but often struggle with dynamic, long-horizon tasks such as real-time strategic games. In a game such as StarCraftII (SC2), agents need to manage resource constraints and adapt to evolving battlefield situations in a partially observable environment. This often overwhelms exisiting LLM-based approaches. To address these challenges, we propose a hierarchical multi-agent framework that employs specialized imitation learning agents under a meta-controller called Strategic Planner (SP). By expert demonstrations, each specialized agent learns a distinctive strategy, such as aerial support or defensive maneuvers, and produces coherent, structured multistep action sequences. The SP then orchestrates these proposals into a single, environmentally adaptive plan that ensures local decisions aligning with long-term strategies. We call this HIMA (Hierarchical Imitation Multi-Agent). We also present TEXTSCII-ALL, a comprehensive SC2 testbed that encompasses all race match combinations in SC2. Our empirical results show that HIMA outperforms state of the arts in strategic clarity, adaptability, and computational efficiency, underscoring the potential of combining specialized imitation modules with meta-level orchestration to develop more robust, general-purpose AI agents.

Operational skill learning, inherently physical and reliant on hands-on practice and kinesthetic feedback, has yet to be effectively replicated in large language model (LLM)-supported training. Current LLM training assistants primarily generate customized textual feedback, neglecting the crucial kinesthetic modality. This gap derives from the textual and uncertain nature of LLMs, compounded by concerns on user acceptance of LLM driven body control. To bridge this gap and realize the potential of collaborative human-LLM action, this work explores human experience of LLM driven kinesthetic assistance. Specifically, we introduced an "Align-Analyze-Adjust" strategy and developed FlightAxis, a tool that integrates LLM with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for flight skill acquisition, a representative operational skill domain. FlightAxis learns flight skills from manuals and guides forearm movements during simulated flight tasks. Our results demonstrate high user acceptance of LLM-mediated body control and significantly reduced task completion times. Crucially, trainees reported that this kinesthetic assistance enhanced their awareness of operation flaws and fostered increased engagement in the training process, rather than relieving perceived load. This work demonstrated the potential of kinesthetic LLM training in operational skill acquisition.

As AI systems become increasingly embedded in organizational workflows and consumer applications, ethical principles such as fairness, transparency, and robustness have been widely endorsed in policy and industry guidelines. However, there is still scarce empirical evidence on whether these principles are recognized, valued, or impactful from the perspective of users. This study investigates the link between ethical AI and user satisfaction by analyzing over 100,000 user reviews of AI products from G2.com. Using transformer - based language models, we measure sentiment across seven ethical dimensions defined by the EU Eth ics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Our findings show that all seven dimensions are positively associated with user satisfaction. Yet, this relationship varies systematically across user and product types. Technical users and reviewers of AI development pla tforms more frequently discuss system - level concerns (e.g., transparency, data governance), while non - technical users and reviewers of end - user applications emphasize human - centric dimensions (e.g., human agency, societal well - being). Moreover, the association between ethical AI and user satisfaction is significantly stronger for non - technical users and end - user applications across all dimensions. Our results highlight the importance of ethical AI design from the user's perspective and underscore the need t o account for contextual differences across user roles and product types.

Machine learning using transformers has shown great potential in medical imaging, but its real-world applicability remains limited due to the scarcity of annotated data. In this study, we propose a practical framework for the few-shot deployment of pretrained MRI transformers in diverse brain imaging tasks. By utilizing the Masked Autoencoder (MAE) pretraining strategy on a large-scale, multi-cohort brain MRI dataset comprising over 31 million slices, we obtain highly transferable latent representations that generalize well across tasks and datasets. For high-level tasks such as classification, a frozen MAE encoder combined with a lightweight linear head achieves state-of-the-art accuracy in MRI sequence identification with minimal supervision. For low-level tasks such as segmentation, we propose MAE-FUnet, a hybrid architecture that fuses multiscale CNN features with pretrained MAE embeddings. This model consistently outperforms other strong baselines in both skull stripping and multi-class anatomical segmentation under data-limited conditions. With extensive quantitative and qualitative evaluations, our framework demonstrates efficiency, stability, and scalability, suggesting its suitability for low-resource clinical environments and broader neuroimaging applications.

Algorithmic systems such as search engines and information retrieval platforms significantly influence academic visibility and the dissemination of knowledge. Despite assumptions of neutrality, these systems can reproduce or reinforce societal biases, including those related to gender. This paper introduces and applies a bias-preserving definition of algorithmic gender fairness, which assesses whether algorithmic outputs reflect real-world gender distributions without introducing or amplifying disparities. Using a heterogeneous dataset of academic profiles from German universities and universities of applied sciences, we analyse gender differences in metadata completeness, publication retrieval in academic databases, and visibility in Google search results. While we observe no overt algorithmic discrimination, our findings reveal subtle but consistent imbalances: male professors are associated with a greater number of search results and more aligned publication records, while female professors display higher variability in digital visibility. These patterns reflect the interplay between platform algorithms, institutional curation, and individual self-presentation. Our study highlights the need for fairness evaluations that account for both technical performance and representational equality in digital systems.

RL-based medical questionnaire systems have shown great potential in medical scenarios. However, their safety and robustness remain unresolved. This study performs a comprehensive evaluation on adversarial attack methods to identify and analyze their potential vulnerabilities. We formulate the diagnosis process as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), where the state is the patient responses and unasked questions, and the action is either to ask a question or to make a diagnosis. We implemented six prevailing major attack methods, including the Fast Gradient Signed Method (FGSM), Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), Carlini & Wagner Attack (C&W) attack, Basic Iterative Method (BIM), DeepFool, and AutoAttack, with seven epsilon values each. To ensure the generated adversarial examples remain clinically plausible, we developed a comprehensive medical validation framework consisting of 247 medical constraints, including physiological bounds, symptom correlations, and conditional medical constraints. We achieved a 97.6% success rate in generating clinically plausible adversarial samples. We performed our experiment on the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) dataset (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/), which consists of 182,630 samples, to predict the participant's 4-year mortality rate. We evaluated our attacks on the AdaptiveFS framework proposed in arXiv:2004.00994. Our results show that adversarial attacks could significantly impact the diagnostic accuracy, with attack success rates ranging from 33.08% (FGSM) to 64.70% (AutoAttack). Our work has demonstrated that even under strict medical constraints on the input, such RL-based medical questionnaire systems still show significant vulnerabilities.

Game theory has long served as a foundational tool in cybersecurity to test, predict, and design strategic interactions between attackers and defenders. The recent advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers new tools and challenges for the security of computer systems; In this work, we investigate whether classical game-theoretic frameworks can effectively capture the behaviours of LLM-driven actors and bots. Using a reproducible framework for game-theoretic LLM agents, we investigate two canonical scenarios -- the one-shot zero-sum game and the dynamic Prisoner's Dilemma -- and we test whether LLMs converge to expected outcomes or exhibit deviations due to embedded biases. Our experiments involve four state-of-the-art LLMs and span five natural languages, English, French, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Mandarin Chinese, to assess linguistic sensitivity. For both games, we observe that the final payoffs are influenced by agents characteristics such as personality traits or knowledge of repeated rounds. Moreover, we uncover an unexpected sensitivity of the final payoffs to the choice of languages, which should warn against indiscriminate application of LLMs in cybersecurity applications and call for in-depth studies, as LLMs may behave differently when deployed in different countries. We also employ quantitative metrics to evaluate the internal consistency and cross-language stability of LLM agents, to help guide the selection of the most stable LLMs and optimising models for secure applications.

The rapid advancement of General Purpose AI (GPAI) models necessitates robust evaluation frameworks, especially with emerging regulations like the EU AI Act and its associated Code of Practice (CoP). Current AI evaluation practices depend heavily on established benchmarks, but these tools were not designed to measure the systemic risks that are the focus of the new regulatory landscape. This research addresses the urgent need to quantify this "benchmark-regulation gap." We introduce Bench-2-CoP, a novel, systematic framework that uses validated LLM-as-judge analysis to map the coverage of 194,955 questions from widely-used benchmarks against the EU AI Act's taxonomy of model capabilities and propensities. Our findings reveal a profound misalignment: the evaluation ecosystem dedicates the vast majority of its focus to a narrow set of behavioral propensities. On average, benchmarks devote 61.6% of their regulatory-relevant questions to "Tendency to hallucinate" and 31.2% to "Lack of performance reliability", while critical functional capabilities are dangerously neglected. Crucially, capabilities central to loss-of-control scenarios, including evading human oversight, self-replication, and autonomous AI development, receive zero coverage in the entire benchmark corpus. This study provides the first comprehensive, quantitative analysis of this gap, demonstrating that current public benchmarks are insufficient, on their own, for providing the evidence of comprehensive risk assessment required for regulatory compliance and offering critical insights for the development of next-generation evaluation tools.