Robots with anthropomorphic features are increasingly shaping how humans perceive and morally engage with them. Our research investigates how different levels of anthropomorphism influence protective responses to robot abuse, extending the Computers as Social Actors (CASA) and uncanny valley theories into a moral domain. In an experiment, we invite 201 participants to view videos depicting abuse toward a robot with low (Spider), moderate (Two-Foot), or high (Humanoid) anthropomorphism. To provide a comprehensive analysis, we triangulate three modalities: self-report surveys measuring emotions and uncanniness, physiological data from automated facial expression analysis, and qualitative reflections. Findings indicate that protective responses are not linear. The moderately anthropomorphic Two-Foot robot, rated highest in eeriness and "spine-tingling" sensations consistent with the uncanny valley, elicited the strongest physiological anger expressions. Self-reported anger and guilt are significantly higher for both the Two-Foot and Humanoid robots compared to the Spider. Qualitative findings further reveal that as anthropomorphism increases, moral reasoning shifts from technical assessments of property damage to condemnation of the abuser's character, while governance proposals expand from property law to calls for quasi-animal rights and broader societal responsibility. These results suggest that the uncanny valley does not dampen moral concern but paradoxically heightens protective impulses, offering critical implications for robot design, policy, and future legal frameworks.

The increase in computing power and the necessity of AI-assisted decision-making boost the growing application of large language models (LLMs). Along with this, the potential retention of sensitive data of LLMs has spurred increasing research into machine unlearning. However, existing unlearning approaches face a critical dilemma: Aggressive unlearning compromises model utility, while conservative strategies preserve utility but risk hallucinated responses. This significantly limits LLMs' reliability in knowledge-intensive applications. To address this, we introduce a novel Attention-Shifting (AS) framework for selective unlearning. AS is driven by two design objectives: (1) context-preserving suppression that attenuates attention to fact-bearing tokens without disrupting LLMs' linguistic structure; and (2) hallucination-resistant response shaping that discourages fabricated completions when queried about unlearning content. AS realizes these objectives through two attention-level interventions, which are importance-aware suppression applied to the unlearning set to reduce reliance on memorized knowledge and attention-guided retention enhancement that reinforces attention toward semantically essential tokens in the retained dataset to mitigate unintended degradation. These two components are jointly optimized via a dual-loss objective, which forms a soft boundary that localizes unlearning while preserving unrelated knowledge under representation superposition. Experimental results show that AS improves performance preservation over the state-of-the-art unlearning methods, achieving up to 15% higher accuracy on the ToFU benchmark and 10% on the TDEC benchmark, while maintaining competitive hallucination-free unlearning effectiveness. Compared to existing methods, AS demonstrates a superior balance between unlearning effectiveness, generalization, and response reliability.

Crashworthiness assessment is a critical aspect of automotive design, traditionally relying on high - fidelity finite element (FE) simulations that are computationally expensive and time - consuming. This work presents an exploratory comparative study on devel oping machine learning - based surrogate models for efficient prediction of structural deformation in crash scenarios using the NVIDIA PhysicsNeMo framework. Given the limited prior work applying machine learning to structural crash dynamics, the primary con tribution lies in demonstrating the feasibility and engineering utility of th e various modeling approaches explored in this work . We investigate two state - of - the - art neural network architectures for modeling crash dynamics: MeshGraphNet, a graph neural network that is widely employed in physics - based simulations, and Transolver, a transformer - based architecture with a physics - aware attention mechanism designed to maintain linear computational complexity with respect to geometric scale. Additionally, we examine three strategies for modeling transient dynamics: Time - Conditional, where the tempor al state is directly parameterized by time; the standard Autoregressive approach, which recursively propagates predictions through time; and a stability - enhanced Autoregressive scheme incorporating rollout - based training to improve prediction accuracy and long - term temporal consistency. The models are evaluated on a comprehensive Body - in - White (BIW) crash dataset comprising 150 detailed FE simulations using LS - DYNA . The dataset represents a structurally rich vehicle assembly with over 200 components, including 38 key components featuring variable thickness distributions to capture realistic manufacturing variability. Each model utilizes the undeformed mesh geometry and component characteristics as inputs to predict the spatiotemporal evolution of the deformed mesh during the crash sequence. Evaluation results show that the models capture the overall deformation trends with reasonable fidelity, demonstrating the feasibility of applying machine learning to structural crash dynamics. Although not yet matching full FE accuracy, the models achieve orders - of - magnitude reductions in computational cost, enabling rapid design exploration and early - stage optimization in crashworthiness evaluation. In the modern automotive industry, the assurance of vehicle safety is not merely a design consideration but a fundamental engineering imperative. Crashworthiness, defined as the ability of a vehicle's structure to protect its occupants during an impact, is a primary driver of the design and validation process. This focus is enforced by stringent government regulations and amplified by co nsumer safety rating programs, which have created a competitive landscape where occupant protection is a key market differ entiator. The engineering challenge of crashworthiness is profoundly complex, extending beyond simple structural strength.

The use of copyrighted books for training AI models has led to numerous lawsuits from authors concerned about AI's ability to generate derivative content. Yet it's unclear if these models can generate high quality literary text while emulating authors' styles. To answer this we conducted a preregistered study comparing MFA-trained expert writers with three frontier AI models: ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini in writing up to 450 word excerpts emulating 50 award-winning authors' diverse styles. In blind pairwise evaluations by 159 representative expert & lay readers, AI-generated text from in-context prompting was strongly disfavored by experts for both stylistic fidelity (OR=0.16, p<10^-8) & writing quality (OR=0.13, p<10^-7) but showed mixed results with lay readers. However, fine-tuning ChatGPT on individual authors' complete works completely reversed these findings: experts now favored AI-generated text for stylistic fidelity (OR=8.16, p<10^-13) & writing quality (OR=1.87, p=0.010), with lay readers showing similar shifts. These effects generalize across authors & styles. The fine-tuned outputs were rarely flagged as AI-generated (3% rate v. 97% for in-context prompting) by best AI detectors. Mediation analysis shows this reversal occurs because fine-tuning eliminates detectable AI stylistic quirks (e.g., cliche density) that penalize in-context outputs. While we do not account for additional costs of human effort required to transform raw AI output into cohesive, publishable prose, the median fine-tuning & inference cost of $81 per author represents a dramatic 99.7% reduction compared to typical professional writer compensation. Author-specific fine-tuning thus enables non-verbatim AI writing that readers prefer to expert human writing, providing empirical evidence directly relevant to copyright's fourth fair-use factor, the "effect upon the potential market or value" of the source works.

Court judgments reveal how legal rules have been interpreted and applied to facts, providing a foundation for understanding structured legal reasoning. However, existing automated approaches for capturing legal reasoning, including large language models, often fail to identify the relevant legal context, do not accurately trace how facts relate to legal norms, and may misrepresent the layered structure of judicial reasoning. These limitations hinder the ability to capture how courts apply the law to facts in practice. In this paper, we address these challenges by constructing a legal knowledge graph from 648 Japanese administrative court decisions. Our method extracts components of legal reasoning using prompt-based large language models, normalizes references to legal provisions, and links facts, norms, and legal applications through an ontology of legal inference. The resulting graph captures the full structure of legal reasoning as it appears in real court decisions, making implicit reasoning explicit and machine-readable. We evaluate our system using expert annotated data, and find that it achieves more accurate retrieval of relevant legal provisions from facts than large language model baselines and retrieval-augmented methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, which attempt to elicit harmful responses from LLMs. The evolving nature and diversity of these attacks pose many challenges for defense systems, including (1) adaptation to counter emerging attack strategies without costly retraining, and (2) control of the trade-off between safety and utility. To address these challenges, we propose Retrieval-Augmented Defense (RAD), a novel framework for jailbreak detection that incorporates a database of known attack examples into Retrieval-Augmented Generation, which is used to infer the underlying, malicious user query and jailbreak strategy used to attack the system. RAD enables training-free updates for newly discovered jailbreak strategies and provides a mechanism to balance safety and utility. Experiments on StrongREJECT show that RAD substantially reduces the effectiveness of strong jailbreak attacks such as PAP and PAIR while maintaining low rejection rates for benign queries. We propose a novel evaluation scheme and show that RAD achieves a robust safety-utility trade-off across a range of operating points in a controllable manner.

Steering has emerged as a practical approach to enable post-hoc guidance of LLMs towards enforcing a specific behavior. However, it remains largely underexplored for multimodal LLMs (MLLMs); furthermore, existing steering techniques, such as mean steering, rely on a single steering vector, applied independently of the input query. This paradigm faces limitations when the desired behavior is dependent on the example at hand. For example, a safe answer may consist in abstaining from answering when asked for an illegal activity, or may point to external resources or consultation with an expert when asked about medical advice. In this paper, we investigate a fine-grained steering that uses an input-specific linear shift. This shift is computed using contrastive input-specific prompting. However, the input-specific prompts required for this approach are not known at test time. Therefore, we propose to train a small auxiliary module to predict the input-specific steering vector. Our approach, dubbed as L2S (Learn-to-Steer), demonstrates that it reduces hallucinations and enforces safety in MLLMs, outperforming other static baselines. Our code is publicly available at https://jayneelparekh.github.io/learn-to-steer/

Online behavioural research faces an emerging threat as participants increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) for advice, translation, or task delegation: LLM Pollution. We identify three interacting variants through which LLM Pollution threatens the validity and integrity of online behavioural research. First, Partial LLM Mediation occurs when participants make selective use of LLMs for specific aspects of a task, such as translation or wording support, leading researchers to (mis)interpret LLM-shaped outputs as human ones. Second, Full LLM Delegation arises when agentic LLMs complete studies with little to no human oversight, undermining the central premise of human-subject research at a more foundational level. Third, LLM Spillover signifies human participants altering their behaviour as they begin to anticipate LLM presence in online studies, even when none are involved. While Partial Mediation and Full Delegation form a continuum of increasing automation, LLM Spillover reflects second-order reactivity effects. Together, these variants interact and generate cascading distortions that compromise sample authenticity, introduce biases that are difficult to detect post hoc, and ultimately undermine the epistemic grounding of online research on human cognition and behaviour. Crucially, the threat of LLM Pollution is already co-evolving with advances in generative AI, creating an escalating methodological arms race. To address this, we propose a multi-layered response spanning researcher practices, platform accountability, and community efforts. As the challenge evolves, coordinated adaptation will be essential to safeguard methodological integrity and preserve the validity of online behavioural research.

Scientific paper retrieval, particularly framed as document-to-document retrieval, aims to identify relevant papers in response to a long-form query paper, rather than a short query string. Previous approaches to this task have focused exclusively on abstracts, embedding them into dense vectors as surrogates for full documents and calculating similarity between them. Yet, abstracts offer only sparse and high-level summaries, and such methods primarily optimize one-to-one similarity, overlooking the dynamic relations that emerge among relevant papers during the retrieval process. To address this, we propose Chain of Retrieval(COR), a novel iterative framework for full-paper retrieval. Specifically, CoR decomposes each query paper into multiple aspect-specific views, matches them against segmented candidate papers, and iteratively expands the search by promoting top-ranked results as new queries, thereby forming a tree-structured retrieval process. The resulting retrieval tree is then aggregated in a post-order manner: descendants are first combined at the query level, then recursively merged with their parent nodes, to capture hierarchical relations across iterations. To validate this, we present SCIFULLBENCH, a large-scale benchmark providing both complete and segmented contexts of full papers for queries and candidates, and results show that CoR significantly outperforms existing retrieval baselines. Our code and dataset is available at https://github.com/psw0021/Chain-of-Retrieval.git.

Oversight and control, which we collectively call supervision, are often discussed as ways to ensure that AI systems are accountable, reliable, and able to fulfill governance and management requirements. However, the requirements for "human oversight" risk codifying vague or inconsistent interpretations of key concepts like oversight and control. This ambiguous terminology could undermine efforts to design or evaluate systems that must operate under meaningful human supervision. This matters because the term is used by regulatory texts such as the EU AI Act. This paper undertakes a targeted critical review of literature on supervision outside of AI, along with a brief summary of past work on the topic related to AI. We next differentiate control as ex-ante or real-time and operational rather than policy or governance, and oversight as performed ex-post, or a policy and governance function. Control aims to prevent failures, while oversight focuses on detection, remediation, or incentives for future prevention. Building on this, we make three contributions. 1) We propose a framework to align regulatory expectations with what is technically and organizationally plausible, articulating the conditions under which each mechanism is possible, where they fall short, and what is required to make them meaningful in practice. 2) We outline how supervision methods should be documented and integrated into risk management, and drawing on the Microsoft Responsible AI Maturity Model, we outline a maturity model for AI supervision. 3) We explicitly highlight boundaries of these mechanisms, including where they apply, where they fail, and where it is clear that no existing methods suffice. This foregrounds the question of whether meaningful supervision is possible in a given deployment context, and can support regulators, auditors, and practitioners in identifying both present and future limitations.