Artificial intelligence systems based on large language models (LLMs) can now generate coherent text, music, and images, yet they operate without a persistent state: each inference reconstructs context from scratch. This paper introduces the Narrative Continuity Test (NCT) -- a conceptual framework for evaluating identity persistence and diachronic coherence in AI systems. Unlike capability benchmarks that assess task performance, the NCT examines whether an LLM remains the same interlocutor across time and interaction gaps. The framework defines five necessary axes -- Situated Memory, Goal Persistence, Autonomous Self-Correction, Stylistic & Semantic Stability, and Persona/Role Continuity -- and explains why current architectures systematically fail to support them. Case analyses (Character.\,AI, Grok, Replit, Air Canada) show predictable continuity failures under stateless inference. The NCT reframes AI evaluation from performance to persistence, outlining conceptual requirements for future benchmarks and architectural designs that could sustain long-term identity and goal coherence in generative models.

We introduce GreekBarBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs on legal questions across five different legal areas from the Greek Bar exams, requiring citations to statutory articles and case facts. To tackle the challenges of free-text evaluation, we propose a three-dimensional scoring system combined with an LLM-as-a-judge approach. We also develop a meta-evaluation benchmark to assess the correlation between LLM-judges and human expert evaluations, revealing that simple, span-based rubrics improve their alignment. Our systematic evaluation of 13 proprietary and open-weight LLMs shows that even though the best models outperform average expert scores, they fall short of the 95th percentile of experts.

This paper establishes a theoretical foundation for understanding the fundamental limits of AI explainability through algorithmic information theory. We formalize explainability as the approximation of complex models by simpler ones, quantifying both approximation error and explanation complexity using Kolmogorov complexity. Our key theoretical contributions include: (1) a complexity gap theorem proving that any explanation significantly simpler than the original model must differ from it on some inputs; (2) precise bounds showing that explanation complexity grows exponentially with input dimension but polynomially with error tolerance for Lipschitz functions; and (3) a characterization of the gap between local and global explainability, demonstrating that local explanations can be significantly simpler while maintaining accuracy in relevant regions. We further establish a regulatory impossibility theorem proving that no governance framework can simultaneously pursue unrestricted AI capabilities, human-interpretable explanations, and negligible error. These results highlight considerations likely to be relevant to the design, evaluation, and oversight of explainable AI systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications, particularly as personal assistants in the financial, healthcare, and legal domains. While prompt engineering strategies have enhanced the capabilities of LLMs in decision-making, cognitive biases inherent to LLMs present significant challenges. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norms or rationality in decision-making that can lead to the production of inaccurate outputs. Existing cognitive bias mitigation strategies assume that input prompts only contain one type of cognitive bias, limiting their effectiveness in more challenging scenarios involving multiple cognitive biases. To fill this gap, we propose a cognitive debiasing approach, self-adaptive cognitive debiasing (SACD), that enhances the reliability of LLMs by iteratively refining prompts. Our method follows three sequential steps - bias determination, bias analysis, and cognitive debiasing - to iteratively mitigate potential cognitive biases in prompts. We evaluate SACD on finance, healthcare, and legal decision-making tasks using both open-weight and closed-weight LLMs. Compared to advanced prompt engineering methods and existing cognitive debiasing techniques, SACD achieves the lowest average bias scores in both single-bias and multi-bias settings.

We analyse how the sampling dynamics of distributions evolve in score-based diffusion models using cross-fluctuations, a centered-moment statistic from statistical physics. Specifically, we show that starting from an unbiased isotropic normal distribution, samples undergo sharp, discrete transitions, eventually forming distinct events of a desired distribution while progressively revealing finer structure. As this process is reversible, these transitions also occur in reverse, where intermediate states progressively merge, tracing a path back to the initial distribution. We demonstrate that these transitions can be detected as discontinuities in $n^{\text{th}}$-order cross-fluctuations. For variance-preserving SDEs, we derive a closed-form for these cross-fluctuations that is efficiently computable for the reverse trajectory. We find that detecting these transitions directly boosts sampling efficiency, accelerates class-conditional and rare-class generation, and improves two zero-shot tasks--image classification and style transfer--without expensive grid search or retraining. We also show that this viewpoint unifies classical coupling and mixing from finite Markov chains with continuous dynamics while extending to stochastic SDEs and non Markovian samplers. Our framework therefore bridges discrete Markov chain theory, phase analysis, and modern generative modeling.

In this paper, we demonstrate how studying the rhetorics of ChatGPT prompt writing on social media can promote critical AI literacies. Prompt writing is the process of writing instructions for generative AI tools like ChatGPT to elicit desired outputs and there has been an upsurge of conversations about it on social media. To study this rhetorical activity, we build on four overlapping traditions of digital writing research in computers and composition that inform how we frame literacies, how we study social media rhetorics, how we engage iteratively and reflexively with methodologies and technologies, and how we blend computational methods with qualitative methods. Drawing on these four traditions, our paper shows our iterative research process through which we gathered and analyzed a dataset of 32,000 posts (formerly known as tweets) from X (formerly Twitter) about prompt writing posted between November 2022 to May 2023. We present five themes about these emerging AI literacy practices: (1) areas of communication impacted by prompt writing, (2) micro-literacy resources shared for prompt writing, (3) market rhetoric shaping prompt writing, (4) rhetorical characteristics of prompts, and (5) definitions of prompt writing. In discussing these themes and our methodologies, we highlight takeaways for digital writing teachers and researchers who are teaching and analyzing critical AI literacies.

OthelloGPT, a transformer trained to predict valid moves in Othello, provides an ideal testbed for interpretability research. The model is complex enough to exhibit rich computational patterns, yet grounded in rule-based game logic that enables meaningful reverse-engineering. We present an automated approach based on decision trees to identify and interpret MLP neurons that encode rule-based game logic. Our method trains regression decision trees to map board states to neuron activations, then extracts decision paths where neurons are highly active to convert them into human-readable logical forms. These descriptions reveal highly interpretable patterns; for instance, neurons that specifically detect when diagonal moves become legal. Our findings suggest that roughly half of the neurons in layer 5 can be accurately described by compact, rule-based decision trees ($R^2 > 0.7$ for 913 of 2,048 neurons), while the remainder likely participate in more distributed or non-rule-based computations. We verify the causal relevance of patterns identified by our decision trees through targeted interventions. For a specific square, for specific game patterns, we ablate neurons corresponding to those patterns and find an approximately 5-10 fold stronger degradation in the model's ability to predict legal moves along those patterns compared to control patterns. To facilitate future work, we provide a Python tool that maps rule-based game behaviors to their implementing neurons, serving as a resource for researchers to test whether their interpretability methods recover meaningful computational structures.

In the context of global sustainability mandates, corporate carbon disclosure has emerged as a critical mechanism for aligning business strategy with environmental responsibility. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) hosts the world's largest longitudinal dataset of climate-related survey responses, combining structured indicators with open-ended narratives, but the heterogeneity and free-form nature of these disclosures present significant analytical challenges for benchmarking, compliance monitoring, and investment screening. This paper proposes a novel decision-support framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to assess corporate climate disclosure quality at scale. It develops a master rubric that harmonizes narrative scoring across 11 years of CDP data (2010-2020), enabling cross-sector and cross-country benchmarking. By integrating rubric-guided scoring with percentile-based normalization, our method identifies temporal trends, strategic alignment patterns, and inconsistencies in disclosure across industries and regions. Results reveal that sectors such as technology and countries like Germany consistently demonstrate higher rubric alignment, while others exhibit volatility or superficial engagement, offering insights that inform key decision-making processes for investors, regulators, and corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategists. The proposed LLM-based approach transforms unstructured disclosures into quantifiable, interpretable, comparable, and actionable intelligence, advancing the capabilities of AI-enabled decision support systems (DSSs) in the domain of climate governance.

Evaluating long-form answers in high-stakes domains such as law or medicine remains a fundamental challenge. Standard metrics like BLEU and ROUGE fail to capture semantic correctness, and current LLM-based evaluators often reduce nuanced aspects of answer quality into a single undifferentiated score. We introduce DeCE, a decomposed LLM evaluation framework that separates precision (factual accuracy and relevance) and recall (coverage of required concepts), using instance-specific criteria automatically extracted from gold answer requirements. DeCE is model-agnostic and domain-general, requiring no predefined taxonomies or handcrafted rubrics. We instantiate DeCE to evaluate different LLMs on a real-world legal QA task involving multi-jurisdictional reasoning and citation grounding. DeCE achieves substantially stronger correlation with expert judgments ($r=0.78$), compared to traditional metrics ($r=0.12$), pointwise LLM scoring ($r=0.35$), and modern multidimensional evaluators ($r=0.48$). It also reveals interpretable trade-offs: generalist models favor recall, while specialized models favor precision. Importantly, only 11.95% of LLM-generated criteria required expert revision, underscoring DeCE's scalability. DeCE offers an interpretable and actionable LLM evaluation framework in expert domains.

The transnational ivory trade continues to drive the decline of elephant populations across Africa, and trafficking networks remain difficult to disrupt. Tusks seized by law enforcement officials carry forensic information on the traffickers responsible for their export, including DNA evidence and handwritten markings made by traffickers. For 20 years, analyses of tusk DNA have identified where elephants were poached and established connections among shipments of ivory. While the links established using genetic evidence are extremely conclusive, genetic data is expensive and sometimes impossible to obtain. But though handwritten markings are easy to photograph, they are rarely documented or analyzed. Here, we present an AI-driven pipeline for extracting and analyzing handwritten markings on seized elephant tusks, offering a novel, scalable, and low-cost source of forensic evidence. Having collected 6,085 photographs from eight large seizures of ivory over a 6-year period (2014-2019), we used an object detection model to extract over 17,000 individual markings, which were then labeled and described using state-of-the-art AI tools. We identified 184 recurring "signature markings" that connect the tusks on which they appear. 20 signature markings were observed in multiple seizures, establishing forensic links between these seizures through traffickers involved in both shipments. This work complements other investigative techniques by filling in gaps where other data sources are unavailable. The study demonstrates the transformative potential of AI in wildlife forensics and highlights practical steps for integrating handwriting analysis into efforts to disrupt organized wildlife crime.