--Over two thirds of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space. Recent tragic incidents involving female pedestrians have highlighted some of the personal safety issues that women still face in cities today. There exist many popular location-based safety applications as a result of this; however, these applications tend to take a reactive approach where action is taken only after an incident has occurred. This paper proposes a preventative approach to the problem by creating safer public environments through societal incentivisation. The proposed system, called "Herd Routes ", improves the safety of female pedestrians by generating busier pedestrian routes as a result of route incen-tivisation. A novel application of distributed ledgers is proposed to provide security and trust, a record of system users' locations and IDs, and a platform for token exchange. A proof-of-concept was developed using the simulation package SUMO (Simulation of Urban Mobility), and a smartphone app. With positive results from the initial testing of the proof-of-concept, further development could significantly contribute towards creating safer pedestrian routes through cities, and tackle the societal change that is required to improve female pedestrian safety in the long term. Emales of all ages face gender-inequities in every day life, and the associated feelings of compromised safety and fearfulness that can arise. Of course, in these situations, women do as much as they can to prioritise their personal safety. Notably, women approach walking through cities with extreme caution, especially at night. In London, for example, there are ongoing initiatives such as the UN Women's Global initiative of "Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces for Women and Girls", which commits to identifying gender-responsive, locally relevant and owned interventions [1].

As the legal community increasingly examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for various legal applications, legal AI developers have turned to retrieval-augmented LLMs ("RAG" systems) to improve system performance and robustness. An obstacle to the development of specialized RAG systems is the lack of realistic legal RAG benchmarks which capture the complexity of both legal retrieval and downstream legal question-answering. To address this, we introduce two novel legal RAG benchmarks: Bar Exam QA and Housing Statute QA. Our tasks correspond to real-world legal research tasks, and were produced through annotation processes which resemble legal research. We describe the construction of these benchmarks and the performance of existing retriever pipelines. Our results suggest that legal RAG remains a challenging application, thus motivating future research.

Humanity appears to be on course to soon develop AI systems that substantially outperform human experts in all cognitive domains and activities. We believe the default trajectory has a high likelihood of catastrophe, including human extinction. Risks come from failure to control powerful AI systems, misuse of AI by malicious rogue actors, war between great powers, and authoritarian lock-in. This research agenda has two aims: to describe the strategic landscape of AI development and to catalog important governance research questions. These questions, if answered, would provide important insight on how to successfully reduce catastrophic risks. We describe four high-level scenarios for the geopolitical response to advanced AI development, cataloging the research questions most relevant to each. Our favored scenario involves building the technical, legal, and institutional infrastructure required to internationally restrict dangerous AI development and deployment (which we refer to as an Off Switch), which leads into an internationally coordinated Halt on frontier AI activities at some point in the future. The second scenario we describe is a US National Project for AI, in which the US Government races to develop advanced AI systems and establish unilateral control over global AI development. We also describe two additional scenarios: a Light-Touch world similar to that of today and a Threat of Sabotage situation where countries use sabotage and deterrence to slow AI development. In our view, apart from the Off Switch and Halt scenario, all of these trajectories appear to carry an unacceptable risk of catastrophic harm. Urgent action is needed from the US National Security community and AI governance ecosystem to answer key research questions, build the capability to halt dangerous AI activities, and prepare for international AI agreements.

Complex systems, such as small Uncrewed Aerial Systems (sUAS) swarms dispatched for emergency response, often require dynamic reconfiguration at runtime under the supervision of human operators. This introduces human-on-the-loop requirements, where evolving needs shape ongoing system functionality and behaviors. While traditional personas support upfront, static requirements elicitation, we propose a persona-based advocate framework for runtime requirements engineering to provide ethically informed, safety-driven, and regulatory-aware decision support. Our approach extends standard personas into event-driven personas. When triggered by events such as adverse environmental conditions, evolving mission state, or operational constraints, the framework updates the sUAS operator's view of the personas, ensuring relevance to current conditions. We create three key advocate personas, namely Safety Controller, Ethical Governor, and Regulatory Auditor, to manage trade-offs among risk, ethical considerations, and regulatory compliance. We perform a proof-of-concept validation in an emergency response scenario using sUAS, showing how our advocate personas provide context-aware guidance grounded in safety, regulatory, and ethical constraints. By evolving static, design-time personas into adaptive, event-driven advocates, the framework surfaces mission-critical runtime requirements in response to changing conditions. These requirements shape operator decisions in real time, aligning actions with the operational demands of the moment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world. As people become increasingly reliant on them for an enormous variety of tasks, a body of academic research has developed to examine these models for inherent biases, especially political biases, often finding them small. We challenge this prevailing wisdom. First, by comparing 31 LLMs to legislators, judges, and a nationally representative sample of U.S. voters, we show that LLMs' apparently small overall partisan preference is the net result of offsetting extreme views on specific topics, much like moderate voters. Second, in a randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can promulgate their preferences into political persuasiveness even in information-seeking contexts: voters randomized to discuss political issues with an LLM chatbot are as much as 5 percentage points more likely to express the same preferences as that chatbot. Contrary to expectations, these persuasive effects are not moderated by familiarity with LLMs, news consumption, or interest in politics. LLMs, especially those controlled by private companies or governments, may become a powerful and targeted vector for political influence.

Access to legal information is fundamental to access to justice. Yet accessibility refers not only to making legal documents available to the public, but also rendering legal information comprehensible to them. A vexing problem in bringing legal information to the public is how to turn formal legal documents such as legislation and judgments, which are often highly technical, to easily navigable and comprehensible knowledge to those without legal education. In this study, we formulate a three-step approach for bringing legal knowledge to laypersons, tackling the issues of navigability and comprehensibility. First, we translate selected sections of the law into snippets (called CLIC-pages), each being a small piece of article that focuses on explaining certain technical legal concept in layperson's terms. Second, we construct a Legal Question Bank (LQB), which is a collection of legal questions whose answers can be found in the CLIC-pages. Third, we design an interactive CLIC Recommender (CRec). Given a user's verbal description of a legal situation that requires a legal solution, CRec interprets the user's input and shortlists questions from the question bank that are most likely relevant to the given legal situation and recommends their corresponding CLIC pages where relevant legal knowledge can be found. In this paper we focus on the technical aspects of creating an LQB. We show how large-scale pre-trained language models, such as GPT-3, can be used to generate legal questions. We compare machine-generated questions (MGQs) against human-composed questions (HCQs) and find that MGQs are more scalable, cost-effective, and more diversified, while HCQs are more precise. We also show a prototype of CRec and illustrate through an example how our 3-step approach effectively brings relevant legal knowledge to the public.

Evaluating machine learning models is crucial not only for determining their technical accuracy but also for assessing their potential societal implications. While the potential for low-sample-size bias in algorithms is well known, we demonstrate the significance of sample-size bias induced by combi-natorics in classification metrics. This revelation challenges the efficacy of these metrics in assessing bias with high resolution, especially when comparing groups of disparate sizes, which frequently arise in social applications. We provide analyses of the bias that appears in several commonly applied metrics and propose a model-agnostic assessment and correction technique. Additionally, we analyze counts of undefined cases in metric calculations, which can lead to misleading evaluations if improperly handled. This work illuminates the previously unrecognized challenge of combinatorics and probability in standard evaluation practices and thereby advances approaches for performing fair and trustworthy classification methods.

Agentic AI systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) as their foundational reasoning engine, are transforming clinical workflows such as medical report generation and clinical summarization by autonomously analyzing sensitive healthcare data and executing decisions with minimal human oversight. However, their adoption demands strict compliance with regulatory frameworks such as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), particularly when handling Protected Health Information (PHI). This work-in-progress paper introduces a HIPAA-compliant Agentic AI framework that enforces regulatory compliance through dynamic, context-aware policy enforcement. Our framework integrates three core mechanisms: (1) Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) for granular PHI governance, (2) a hybrid PHI sanitization pipeline combining regex patterns and BERT-based model to minimize leakage, and (3) immutable audit trails for compliance verification.

The California State Bar's botched roll out of a new exam -- a move that the cash-strapped agency made in the hopes of saving money -- could ultimately end up costing it an additional 5.6 million. Leah T. Wilson, executive director of the State Bar, told state lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday that the agency expects to pay around 3 million to offer free exams to test takers, an additional 2 million to book in-person testing sites in July, and 620,000 to return the test to its traditional system of multiple-choice questions in July. Wilson, who announced last week she will step down when her term ends this summer, revealed the costs during a 90-minute hearing called by Sen. Thomas J. Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to find out what went so "spectacularly wrong." Chaos ensued in February when thousands of test takers seeking to practice law in California sat for the new exam. Some reported they couldn't log into the exam because online testing platforms repeatedly crashed.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has refused one of Tesla's initial attempts to trademark the term "Robotaxi" because it believes the name is generic and already in use by other companies, according to a filing spotted by TechCrunch. Tesla was hoping to trademark the term in connection to its planned self-driving car service, but now it'll have to reply with more evidence to change the office's mind. The main issue outlined in the USPTO decision is that "Robotaxi" is "merely descriptive," as in its an already commonly used term. A robotaxi typically refers to the self-driving cars used in services like Waymo. As long as Silicon Valley has believed money could be made selling autonomous vehicles (and the rides you can take in them), the term has been in use.