Traditional Business Process Management (BPM) struggles with rigidity, opacity, and scalability in dynamic environments while emerging Large Language Models (LLMs) present transformative opportunities alongside risks. This paper explores four real-world use cases that demonstrate how LLMs, augmented with trustworthy process intelligence, redefine process modeling, prediction, and automation. Grounded in early-stage research projects with industrial partners, the work spans manufacturing, modeling, life-science, and design processes, addressing domain-specific challenges through human-AI collaboration. In manufacturing, an LLM-driven framework integrates uncertainty-aware explainable Machine Learning (ML) with interactive dialogues, transforming opaque predictions into auditable workflows. For process modeling, conversational interfaces democratize BPMN design. Pharmacovigilance agents automate drug safety monitoring via knowledge-graph-augmented LLMs. Finally, sustainable textile design employs multi-agent systems to navigate regulatory and environmental trade-offs. We intend to examine tensions between transparency and efficiency, generalization and specialization, and human agency versus automation. By mapping these trade-offs, we advocate for context-sensitive integration prioritizing domain needs, stakeholder values, and iterative human-in-the-loop workflows over universal solutions. This work provides actionable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming to operationalize LLMs in critical BPM environments.

--With the onset of large language models (LLMs), the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models is becoming increasingly multi-dimensional. Accordingly, there have been several large, multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks put forward to evaluate LLMs. Though these frameworks are much more realistic than previous attempts which only used a single score like accuracy, multi-dimensional evaluations can complicate decision-making since there is no obvious way to select an optimal model. This work introduces preference sampling, a method to extract a scalar trustworthiness score from multi-dimensional evaluation results by considering the many characteristics of model performance which users value. We show that preference sampling improves upon alternate aggregation methods by using multi-dimensional trustworthiness evaluations of LLMs from TrustLLM and DecodingTrust. We find that preference sampling is consistently reductive, fully reducing the set of candidate models 100% of the time whereas Pareto optimality never reduces the set by more than 50%. Likewise, preference sampling is consistently sensitive to user priors--allowing users to specify the relative weighting and confidence of their preferences--whereas averaging scores is intransigent to users' prior knowledge. With the recent rapid scaling of AI models, our trust in AI is no longer proportional to any single measure of system performance. Because new types of AI like LLMs can perform many types of tasks, a new suite of metrics is replacing singular error metrics like accuracy to capture aspects of model behavior like hallucination, unsafe recommendations, and alignment. This follows from existing work which suggests that trustworthiness is a function of a set of characteristics like fairness, safety, privacy, and so on [1], [11], [18]. Though there is no consensus on the exact characteristics of trustworthiness, it is clear that the relative value of the characteristics is domain-specific [18] and there is already work on defining and quantifying these characteristics in the context of large language models [7], [12], [21].

A combinatorial intervention, consisting of multiple treatments applied to a single unit with potentially interactive effects, has substantial applications in fields such as biomedicine, engineering, and beyond. Given $p$ possible treatments, conducting all possible $2^p$ combinatorial interventions can be laborious and quickly becomes infeasible as $p$ increases. Here we introduce probabilistic factorial experimental design, formalized from how scientists perform lab experiments. In this framework, the experimenter selects a dosage for each possible treatment and applies it to a group of units. Each unit independently receives a random combination of treatments, sampled from a product Bernoulli distribution determined by the dosages. Additionally, the experimenter can carry out such experiments over multiple rounds, adapting the design in an active manner. We address the optimal experimental design problem within an intervention model that imposes bounded-degree interactions between treatments. In the passive setting, we provide a closed-form solution for the near-optimal design. Our results prove that a dosage of $\tfrac{1}{2}$ for each treatment is optimal up to a factor of $1+O(\tfrac{\ln(n)}{n})$ for estimating any $k$-way interaction model, regardless of $k$, and imply that $O\big(kp^{3k}\ln(p)\big)$ observations are required to accurately estimate this model. For the multi-round setting, we provide a near-optimal acquisition function that can be numerically optimized. We also explore several extensions of the design problem and finally validate our findings through simulations.

Modern AI systems are man-made objects that leverage machine learning to support our lives across a myriad of contexts and applications. Despite extensive epistemological and ethical debates, their metaphysical foundations remain relatively under explored. The orthodox view simply suggests that AI systems, as artifacts, lack well-posed identity and persistence conditions -- their metaphysical kinds are no real kinds. In this work, we challenge this perspective by introducing a theory of metaphysical identity of AI systems. We do so by characterizing their kinds and introducing identity criteria -- formal rules that answer the questions "When are two AI systems the same?" and "When does an AI system persist, despite change?" Building on Carrara and Vermaas' account of fine-grained artifact kinds, we argue that AI trustworthiness provides a lens to understand AI system kinds and formalize the identity of these artifacts by relating their functional requirements to their physical make-ups. The identity criteria of AI systems are determined by their trustworthiness profiles -- the collection of capabilities that the systems must uphold over time throughout their artifact histories, and their effectiveness in maintaining these capabilities. Our approach suggests that the identity and persistence of AI systems is sensitive to the socio-technical context of their design and utilization via their trustworthiness, providing a solid metaphysical foundation to the epistemological, ethical, and legal discussions about these artifacts.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the EU AI Act, which entered into force in 2024. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. In our analysis of the AI Act and its applicability, we contribute the following: 1.) We give a high-level introduction to the AI Act aimed at non-legal AI research scientists. 2.) We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to research. 3.) We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability and state that especially scientific research exceptions fail to account for current AI research practices. 4.) We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act on research.

With the increasing size of frontier LLMs, post-training quantization has become the standard for memory-efficient deployment. Recent work has shown that basic rounding-based quantization schemes pose security risks, as they can be exploited to inject malicious behaviors into quantized models that remain hidden in full precision. However, existing attacks cannot be applied to more complex quantization methods, such as the GGUF family used in the popular ollama and llama$.$cpp frameworks. In this work, we address this gap by introducing the first attack on GGUF. Our key insight is that the quantization error -- the difference between the full-precision weights and their (de-)quantized version -- provides sufficient flexibility to construct malicious quantized models that appear benign in full precision. Leveraging this, we develop an attack that trains the target malicious LLM while constraining its weights based on quantization errors. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our attack on three popular LLMs across nine GGUF quantization data types on three diverse attack scenarios: insecure code generation ($Δ$=$88.7\%$), targeted content injection ($Δ$=$85.0\%$), and benign instruction refusal ($Δ$=$30.1\%$). Our attack highlights that (1) the most widely used post-training quantization method is susceptible to adversarial interferences, and (2) the complexity of quantization schemes alone is insufficient as a defense.

As financial institutions increasingly rely on machine learning models to automate lending decisions, concerns about algorithmic fairness have risen. This paper explores the tradeoff between enforcing fairness constraints (such as demographic parity or equal opportunity) and maximizing lender profitability. Through simulations on synthetic data that reflects real-world lending patterns, we quantify how different fairness interventions impact profit margins and default rates. Our results demonstrate that equal opportunity constraints typically impose lower profit costs than demographic parity, but surprisingly, removing protected attributes from the model (fairness through unawareness) outperforms explicit fairness interventions in both fairness and profitability metrics. We further identify the specific economic conditions under which fair lending becomes profitable and analyze the feature-specific drivers of unfairness. These findings offer practical guidance for designing lending algorithms that balance ethical considerations with business objectives.

With the recent advancement in the field of deep learning and computer vision, crowd scene analysis has gained significant attention. UN predicts world population growth of 0.82% by 2035, driving people to cities for better lifestyles and social events like concerts, shopping, political gatherings, and educational conferences. Crowd scene analysis is crucial for ensuring a safe environment in public spaces, but manual monitoring can be laborious due to the risk of missing important information. An automatic solution is needed for efficient real-life applications. Our research is focused on two main applications of crowd scene analysis: crowd counting, and anomaly detection.

Query expansion methods powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated effectiveness in zero-shot retrieval tasks. These methods assume that LLMs can generate hypothetical documents that, when incorporated into a query vector, enhance the retrieval of real evidence. However, we challenge this assumption by investigating whether knowledge leakage in benchmarks contributes to the observed performance gains. Using fact verification as a testbed, we analyze whether the generated documents contain information entailed by ground-truth evidence and assess their impact on performance. Our findings indicate that, on average, performance improvements consistently occurred for claims whose generated documents included sentences entailed by gold evidence. This suggests that knowledge leakage may be present in fact-verification benchmarks, potentially inflating the perceived performance of LLM-based query expansion methods.

Large language models (LLMs) have notably progressed in multi-step and long-chain reasoning. However, extending their reasoning capabilities to encompass deep interactions with search remains a non-trivial challenge, as models often fail to identify optimal reasoning-search interaction trajectories, resulting in suboptimal responses. We propose R-Search, a novel reinforcement learning framework for Reasoning-Search integration, designed to enable LLMs to autonomously execute multi-step reasoning with deep search interaction, and learn optimal reasoning search interaction trajectories via multi-reward signals, improving response quality in complex logic- and knowledge-intensive tasks. R-Search guides the LLM to dynamically decide when to retrieve or reason, while globally integrating key evidence to enhance deep knowledge interaction between reasoning and search. During RL training, R-Search provides multi-stage, multi-type rewards to jointly optimize the reasoning-search trajectory. Experiments on seven datasets show that R-Search outperforms advanced RAG baselines by up to 32.2% (in-domain) and 25.1% (out-of-domain). The code and data are available at https://github.com/QingFei1/R-Search.