With artificial intelligence (AI) being applied to bring autonomy to decision-making in safety-critical domains such as the ones typified in the aerospace and emergency-response services, there has been a call to address the ethical implications of structuring those decisions, so they remain reliable and justifiable when human lives are at stake. This paper contributes to addressing the challenge of decision-making by proposing a structured decision-making framework as a foundational step towards responsible AI. The proposed structured decision-making framework is implemented in autonomous decision-making, specifically within disaster management. By introducing concepts of Enabler agents, Levels and Scenarios, the proposed framework's performance is evaluated against systems relying solely on judgement-based insights, as well as human operators who have disaster experience: victims, volunteers, and stakeholders. The results demonstrate that the structured decision-making framework achieves 60.94% greater stability in consistently accurate decisions across multiple Scenarios, compared to judgement-based systems. Moreover, the study shows that the proposed framework outperforms human operators with a 38.93% higher accuracy across various Scenarios. These findings demonstrate the promise of the structured decision-making framework for building more reliable autonomous AI applications in safety-critical contexts.

This paper presents a comparative analysis of community unionism (CU) in two distinct historical and organizational contexts: the National Boot and Shoe Union (B\&S) in the 1920s and Unite Community in the 2010s--2020s. Using BERTopic for thematic modeling and cTF-IDF weighting, alongside word frequency analysis, the study examines the extent to which each union's discourse aligns with key features of CU -- such as coalition-building, grassroots engagement, and action beyond the workplace. The results reveal significant differences in thematic focus and discursive coherence. While Unite Community demonstrates stronger alignment with outward-facing, social justice-oriented themes, the B\&S corpus emphasizes internal administration, industrial relations, and member services -- reflecting a more traditional, servicing-oriented union model. The analysis also highlights methodological insights, demonstrating how modern NLP techniques can enhance the study of historical labor archives. Ultimately, the findings suggest that while both unions engage with community-related themes, their underlying models of engagement diverge significantly, challenging assumptions about the continuity and universality of community unionism across time and sector.

--This study presents a novel approach to voice synthesis that can substitute the traditional grapheme-to-phoneme (G2P) conversion by using a deep learning-based model that generates discrete tokens directly from speech. Utilizing a pre-trained voice SSL model, we train a T5 encoder to produce pseudo-language labels from mixed-script texts (e.g., containing Kanji and Kana). This method eliminates the need for manual phonetic transcription, reducing costs and enhancing scalability, especially for large non-transcribed audio datasets. Our model matches the performance of conventional G2P-based text-to-speech systems and is capable of synthesizing speech that retains natural linguistic and paralinguistic features, such as accents and intonations. Speech synthesis refers to the technology by which machines automatically generate speech audio signals and is commonly known as text-to-speech (TTS).

Large Language Models (LLM) have achieved remarkable performances in general domains and are now extending into the expert domain of law. Several benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate LLMs' legal capabilities. However, these benchmarks fail to evaluate open-ended and provision-grounded Question Answering (QA). To address this, we introduce a Korean Benchmark for Legal EXplainable QA (KoBLEX), designed to evaluate provision-grounded, multi-hop legal reasoning. KoBLEX includes 226 scenario-based QA instances and their supporting provisions, created using a hybrid LLM-human expert pipeline. We also propose a method called Parametric provision-guided Selection Retrieval (ParSeR), which uses LLM-generated parametric provisions to guide legally grounded and reliable answers. ParSeR facilitates multi-hop reasoning on complex legal questions by generating parametric provisions and employing a three-stage sequential retrieval process. Furthermore, to better evaluate the legal fidelity of the generated answers, we propose Legal Fidelity Evaluation (LF-Eval). LF-Eval is an automatic metric that jointly considers the question, answer, and supporting provisions and shows a high correlation with human judgments. Experimental results show that ParSeR consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving the best results across multiple LLMs. Notably, compared to standard retrieval with GPT-4o, ParSeR achieves +37.91 higher F1 and +30.81 higher LF-Eval. Further analyses reveal that ParSeR efficiently delivers consistent performance across reasoning depths, with ablations confirming the effectiveness of ParSeR.

AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

In the coming decade, artificially intelligent agents with the ability to plan and execute complex tasks over long time horizons with little direct oversight from humans may be deployed across the economy. This chapter surveys recent developments and highlights open questions for economists around how AI agents might interact with humans and with each other, shape markets and organizations, and what institutions might be required for well-functioning markets.

A criminal judicial opinion represents the judge's disposition of a case, including the decision rationale and sentencing. Automatically generating such opinions can assist in analyzing sentencing consistency and provide judges with references to similar past cases. However, current research typically approaches this task by dividing it into two isolated subtasks: legal reasoning and sentencing prediction. This separation often leads to inconsistency between the reasoning and predictions, failing to meet real-world judicial requirements. Furthermore, prior studies rely on manually curated knowledge to enhance applicability, yet such methods remain limited in practical deployment. To address these limitations and better align with legal practice, we propose a new LegalAI task: Judicial Opinion Generation, which simultaneously produces both legal reasoning and sentencing decisions. To achieve this, we introduce LegalChainReasoner, a framework that applies structured legal chains to guide the model through comprehensive case assessments. By integrating factual premises, composite legal conditions, and sentencing conclusions, our approach ensures flexible knowledge injection and end-to-end opinion generation. Experiments on two real-world and open-source Chinese legal case datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms baseline models.

In real-world applications, domain data often contains identifiable or sensitive attributes, is subject to strict regulations (e.g., HIPAA, GDPR), and requires explicit data feature engineering for interpretability and transparency. Existing feature engineering primarily focuses on advancing downstream task performance, often risking privacy leakage. We generalize this learning task under such new requirements as Privacy-Preserving Data Reprogramming (PPDR): given a dataset, transforming features to maximize target attribute prediction accuracy while minimizing sensitive attribute prediction accuracy. PPDR poses challenges for existing systems: 1) generating high-utility feature transformations without being overwhelmed by a large search space, and 2) disentangling and eliminating sensitive information from utility-oriented features to reduce privacy inferability. To tackle these challenges, we propose DELTA, a two-phase variational disentangled generative learning framework. Phase I uses policy-guided reinforcement learning to discover feature transformations with downstream task utility, without any regard to privacy inferability. Phase II employs a variational LSTM seq2seq encoder-decoder with a utility-privacy disentangled latent space design and adversarial-causal disentanglement regularization to suppress privacy signals during feature generation. Experiments on eight datasets show DELTA improves predictive performance by ~9.3% and reduces privacy leakage by ~35%, demonstrating robust, privacy-aware data transformation.

We investigate the efficacy of Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting implicit and explicit hate speech, examining whether models with minimal safety alignment (uncensored) might provide more objective classification capabilities compared to their heavily-aligned (censored) counterparts. While uncensored models theoretically offer a less constrained perspective free from moral guardrails that could bias classification decisions, our results reveal a surprising trade-off: censored models significantly outperform their uncensored counterparts in both accuracy and robustness, achieving 78.7% versus 64.1% strict accuracy. However, this enhanced performance comes with its own limitation -- the safety alignment acts as a strong ideological anchor, making censored models resistant to persona-based influence, while uncensored models prove highly malleable to ideological framing. Furthermore, we identify critical failures across all models in understanding nuanced language such as irony. We also find alarming fairness disparities in performance across different targeted groups and systemic overconfidence that renders self-reported certainty unreliable. These findings challenge the notion of LLMs as objective arbiters and highlight the need for more sophisticated auditing frameworks that account for fairness, calibration, and ideological consistency.

Generative models have achieved impressive results in text to image tasks, significantly advancing visual content creation. However, this progress comes at a cost, as such models rely heavily on large-scale training data and may unintentionally replicate copyrighted elements, creating serious legal and ethical challenges for real-world deployment. To address these concerns, researchers have proposed various strategies to mitigate copyright risks, most of which are prompt based methods that filter or rewrite user inputs to prevent explicit infringement. While effective in handling obvious cases, these approaches often fall short in more subtle situations, where seemingly benign prompts can still lead to infringing outputs. To address these limitations, this paper introduces Assessing and Mitigating Copyright Risks (AMCR), a comprehensive framework which i) builds upon prompt-based strategies by systematically restructuring risky prompts into safe and non-sensitive forms, ii) detects partial infringements through attention-based similarity analysis, and iii) adaptively mitigates risks during generation to reduce copyright violations without compromising image quality. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of AMCR in revealing and mitigating latent copyright risks, offering practical insights and benchmarks for the safer deployment of generative models.