Abstract--The 2024 July Revolution in Bangladesh represents a landmark event in the study of civil resistance: a successful, student-led civilian uprising that overthrew a long-standing authoritarian regime despite facing brutal state repression. This study investigates the central paradox of its success: how state violence, intended to quell dissent, ultimately fueled the movement's victory. We employ a mixed-methods approach. First, we develop a qualitative narrative of the conflict's timeline to generate specific, testable hypotheses. Then, using a disaggregated, event-level dataset, we employ a multi-method quantitative analysis to dissect the complex relationship between repression and mobilisation. We provide a framework to analyse explosive modern uprisings like the July Revolution. Initial pooled regression models highlight the crucial role of protest momentum (measured by a feedback loop effect) in sustaining the movement. T o isolate causal effects, we specify a Two-Way Fixed Effects panel model, which provides robust evidence for a direct and statistically significant local suppression backfire effect. Our V ector Autoregression (V AR) analysis provides clear visual evidence of an immediate, nationwide mobilisation in response to increased lethal violence. We further demonstrate that this effect was non-linear . A structural break analysis reveals that the backfire dynamic was statistically insignificant in the conflict's early phase but was triggered by the catalytic moral shock of the first wave of lethal violence, and its visuals circulated around July 16th. We conclude that the July Revolution was driven by a contingent, non-linear backfire, triggered by specific catalytic moral shocks and accelerated by the viral reaction to the visual spectacle of state brutality. N August 2024, the fifteen-year rule of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh came to a sudden and dramatic end. After weeks of escalating nationwide protests, she resigned from her post and fled the country. These authors contributed equally to this work. Saiful Bari Siddiqui is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh (e-mail: saiful.bari@bracu.ac.bd). Anupam Debashis Roy is a PhD candidate at the Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (e-mail: anu-pam.roy@sant.ox.ac.uk). In a matter of weeks, this initial spark grew into a nationwide fire, as hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens joined the students, bringing the country to a standstill and achieving a political transformation that had seemed unthinkable just a month earlier.

This short essay is a reworking of the answers offered by the author at the Debate Session of the AIHUB (CSIC) and EduCaixa Summer School, organized by Marta Garcia-Matos and Lissette Lemus, and coordinated by Albert Sabater (OEIAC, UG), with the participation of Vanina Martinez-Posse (IIIA-CSIC), Eulalia Soler (Eurecat) and Pompeu Casanovas (IIIA-CSIC) on July 4th 2025. Albert Sabater posed three questions: (1) How can regulatory frameworks priori-tise the protection of fundamental rights (privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, etc.) in the development of AI, without falling into the false dichotomy between regulation and innova-tion? (2) Given the risks of AI (bias, mass surveillance, manipulation), what examples of regu-lations or policies have demonstrated that it is possible to foster responsible innovation, putting the public interest before profitability, without giving in to competitive pressure from actors such as China or the US? (3) In a scenario where the US prioritizes flexibility, what mecha-nisms could ensure that international cooperation in AI does not become a race to the bottom in rights, but rather a global standard of accountability? The article attempts to answer these three questions and concludes with some reflections on the relevance of the answers for education and research.

Evaluating large language model (LLM) outputs in the legal domain presents unique challenges due to the complex and nuanced nature of legal analysis. Current evaluation approaches either depend on reference data, which is costly to produce, or use standardized assessment methods, both of which have significant limitations for legal applications. Although LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising evaluation technique, its reliability and effectiveness in legal contexts depend heavily on evaluation processes unique to the legal industry and how trustworthy the evaluation appears to the human legal expert. This is where existing evaluation methods currently fail and exhibit considerable variability. This paper aims to close the gap: a) we break down lengthy responses into 'Legal Data Points' (LDPs), self-contained units of information, and introduce a novel, reference-free evaluation methodology that reflects how lawyers evaluate legal answers; b) we demonstrate that our method outperforms a variety of baselines on both our proprietary dataset and an open-source dataset (LegalBench); c) we show how our method correlates more closely with human expert evaluations and helps improve inter-annotator agreement; and finally d) we open source our Legal Data Points for a subset of LegalBench used in our experiments, allowing the research community to replicate our results and advance research in this vital area of LLM evaluation on legal question-answering.

Hierarchical text classification (HTC) assigns documents to multiple levels of a pre-defined taxonomy. Automated patent subject classification represents one of the hardest HTC scenarios because of domain knowledge difficulty and a huge number of labels. Prior approaches only output a flat label set, which offers little insight into the reason behind predictions. Therefore, we propose Reasoning for Hierarchical Classification (RHC), a novel framework that reformulates HTC as a step-by-step reasoning task to sequentially deduce hierarchical labels. RHC trains large language models (LLMs) in two stages: a cold-start stage that aligns outputs with chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning format and a reinforcement learning (RL) stage to enhance multi-step reasoning ability. RHC demonstrates four advantages in our experiments. (1) Effectiveness: RHC surpasses previous baselines and outperforms the supervised fine-tuning counterparts by approximately 3% in accuracy and macro F1. (2) Explainability: RHC produces natural-language justifications before prediction to facilitate human inspection. (3) Scalability: RHC scales favorably with model size with larger gains compared to standard fine-tuning. (4) Applicability: Beyond patents, we further demonstrate that RHC achieves state-of-the-art performance on other widely used HTC benchmarks, which highlights its broad applicability.

Machine unlearning is critical for enforcing data deletion rights like the "right to be forgotten." As a decentralized paradigm, Federated Learning (FL) also requires unlearning, but realistic implementations face two major challenges. First, fairness in Federated Unlearning (FU) is often overlooked. Exact unlearning methods typically force all clients into costly retraining, even those uninvolved. Approximate approaches, using gradient ascent or distillation, make coarse interventions that can unfairly degrade performance for clients with only retained data. Second, most FU evaluations rely on synthetic data assumptions (IID/non-IID) that ignore real-world heterogeneity. These unrealistic benchmarks obscure the true impact of unlearning and limit the applicability of current methods. We first conduct a comprehensive benchmark of existing FU methods under realistic data heterogeneity and fairness conditions. We then propose a novel, fairness-aware FU approach, Federated Cross-Client-Constrains Unlearning (FedCCCU), to explicitly address both challenges. FedCCCU offers a practical and scalable solution for real-world FU. Experimental results show that existing methods perform poorly in realistic settings, while our approach consistently outperforms them.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a promising approach to mitigate hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) for legal applications, but its reliability is critically dependent on the accuracy of the retrieval step. This is particularly challenging in the legal domain, where large databases of structurally similar documents often cause retrieval systems to fail. In this paper, we address this challenge by first identifying and quantifying a critical failure mode we term Document-Level Retrieval Mismatch (DRM), where the retriever selects information from entirely incorrect source documents. To mitigate DRM, we investigate a simple and computationally efficient technique which we refer to as Summary-Augmented Chunking (SAC). This method enhances each text chunk with a document-level synthetic summary, thereby injecting crucial global context that would otherwise be lost during a standard chunking process. Our experiments on a diverse set of legal information retrieval tasks show that SAC greatly reduces DRM and, consequently, also improves text-level retrieval precision and recall. Interestingly, we find that a generic summarization strategy outperforms an approach that incorporates legal expert domain knowledge to target specific legal elements. Our work provides evidence that this practical, scalable, and easily integrable technique enhances the reliability of RAG systems when applied to large-scale legal document datasets.

Abstract--The risks associated with adopting large language model (LLM) chatbots in software organizations highlight the need for clear policies. We examine how 11 companies create these policies and the factors that influence them, aiming to help managers safely integrate chatbots into development workflows. In software organizations, the software product is gradually evolving to AI-powered software (AIware) with the use of AI, more specifically, large language models (LLMs) in the development process [2]. LLMs are increasingly seen as valuable tools for improving productivity, which motivated enterprises to adopt them [3]. However, these models have introduced risks and concerns that impact the organization, the software engineers, and the product. Integrating LLMs into software development raises challenges related to the quality and ownership of generated content [4], which complicates accountability and can affect product reliability . In addition, interactions with LLMs (e.g., through external APIs) may expose organizations to liability where developers unintentionally transmit sensitive data, resulting in legal repercussions [5].

Traditional reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) for large language models (LLMs) relies on expensive human-annotated datasets, while Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) also incurs significant costs, requiring the collection of diverse prompts and corresponding responses, often necessitating external reward models or proprietary models like GPT-4 to annotate preference pairs. In this work, we introduce Self-Alignment Optimization (SAO), a fully self-synthetic framework for LLM alignment, where all training data, including prompts (i.e., user queries), responses, and preferences, are generated by the model itself. Specifically, SAO first instructs the LLM to engage in persona role-play and generate diverse prompts and responses, which are then self-evaluated for preference optimization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SAO effectively enhances the model's chat capabilities on standard benchmarks like AlpacaEval~2.0, while maintaining strong performance on downstream objective tasks (e.g., question-answering, math reasoning). Our work provides a practical solution for self-improvement in aligning LLMs, and the code for reproducing our results is available at: https://github.com/SJY8460/SAO.

Contemporary language models are fluent yet routinely mis-handle the types of meaning their outputs entail. We argue that hallucination, brittle moderation, and opaque compliance outcomes are symptoms of missing type-theoretic semantics rather than data or scale limitations. Building on Montague's view of language as typed, compositional algebra, we recast alignment as a parsing problem: natural-language inputs must be compiled into structures that make explicit their descriptive, normative, and legal dimensions under context. We present Savassan, a neuro-symbolic architecture that compiles utterances into Montague-style logical forms and maps them to typed ontologies extended with deontic operators and jurisdictional contexts. Neural components extract candidate structures from unstructured inputs; symbolic components perform type checking, constraint reasoning, and cross-jurisdiction mapping to produce compliance-aware guidance rather than binary censorship. In cross-border scenarios, the system "parses once" (e.g., defect claim(product x, company y)) and projects the result into multiple legal ontologies (e.g., defamation risk in KR/JP, protected opinion in US, GDPR checks in EU), composing outcomes into a single, explainable decision. This paper contributes: (i) a diagnosis of hallucination as a type error; (ii) a formal Montague-ontology bridge for business/legal reasoning; and (iii) a production-oriented design that embeds typed interfaces across the pipeline. We outline an evaluation plan using legal reasoning benchmarks and synthetic multi-jurisdiction suites. Our position is that trustworthy autonomy requires compositional typing of meaning, enabling systems to reason about what is described, what is prescribed, and what incurs liability within a unified algebra of meaning.

While de-identification models can help conceal the identity of the individual(s) mentioned in a document, they fail to address linkage risks, defined as the potential to map the de-identified text back to its source. One straightforward way to perform such linkages is to extract phrases from the de-identified document and then check their presence in the original dataset. This paper presents a method to counter search-based linkage attacks while preserving the semantic integrity of the text. The method proceeds in two steps. We first construct an inverted index of the N-grams occurring in the document collection, making it possible to efficiently determine which N-grams appear in less than $k$ documents (either alone or in combination with other N-grams). An LLM-based rewriter is then iteratively queried to reformulate those spans until linkage is no longer possible. Experimental results on a collection of court cases show that the method is able to effectively prevent search-based linkages while remaining faithful to the original content.