The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems. While prior work has sought to clarify some of these principles, little attention has been paid to robustness and cybersecurity. This paper aims to fill this gap. We identify legal challenges and shortcomings in provisions related to robustness and cybersecurity for high-risk AI systems (Art. 15 AIA) and general-purpose AI models (Art. 55 AIA). We show that robustness and cybersecurity demand resilience against performance disruptions. Furthermore, we assess potential challenges in implementing these provisions in light of recent advancements in the machine learning (ML) literature. Our analysis informs efforts to develop harmonized standards, guidelines by the European Commission, as well as benchmarks and measurement methodologies under Art. 15(2) AIA. With this, we seek to bridge the gap between legal terminology and ML research, fostering a better alignment between research and implementation efforts.

In this work, we study the effect of annotation guidelines -- textual descriptions of event types and arguments, when instruction-tuning large language models for event extraction. We conducted a series of experiments with both human-provided and machine-generated guidelines in both full- and low-data settings. Our results demonstrate the promise of annotation guidelines when there is a decent amount of training data and highlight its effectiveness in improving cross-schema generalization and low-frequency event-type performance.

Building on related concepts, like, decentralized identifiers (DIDs), proof of personhood, anonymous credentials, personhood credentials (PHCs) emerged as an alternative approach, enabling individuals to verify to digital service providers that they are a person without disclosing additional information. However, new technologies might introduce some friction due to users misunderstandings and mismatched expectations. Despite their growing importance, limited research has been done on users perceptions and preferences regarding PHCs. To address this gap, we conducted competitive analysis, and semi-structured online user interviews with 23 participants from US and EU to provide concrete design recommendations for PHCs that incorporate user needs, adoption rules, and preferences. Our study -- (a)surfaces how people reason about unknown privacy and security guarantees of PHCs compared to current verification methods -- (b) presents the impact of several factors on how people would like to onboard and manage PHCs, including, trusted issuers (e.g. gov), ground truth data to issue PHC (e.g biometrics, physical id), and issuance system (e.g. centralized vs decentralized). In a think-aloud conceptual design session, participants recommended -- conceptualized design, such as periodic biometrics verification, time-bound credentials, visually interactive human-check, and supervision of government for issuance system. We propose actionable designs reflecting users preferences.

The recent application of LLMs to the legal field has spurred the creation of benchmarks across various jurisdictions and languages. However, no benchmark has yet been specifically designed for the Portuguese legal system. In this work, we present LegalBench.PT, the first comprehensive legal benchmark covering key areas of Portuguese law. To develop LegalBench.PT, we first collect long-form questions and answers from real law exams, and then use GPT-4o to convert them into multiple-choice, true/false, and matching formats. Once generated, the questions are filtered and processed to improve the quality of the dataset. To ensure accuracy and relevance, we validate our approach by having a legal professional review a sample of the generated questions. Although the questions are synthetically generated, we show that their basis in human-created exams and our rigorous filtering and processing methods applied result in a reliable benchmark for assessing LLMs' legal knowledge and reasoning abilities. Finally, we evaluate the performance of leading LLMs on LegalBench.PT and investigate potential biases in GPT-4o's responses. We also assess the performance of Portuguese lawyers on a sample of questions to establish a baseline for model comparison and validate the benchmark.

This paper presents a reproducibility study and extension of "Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation." We validate the original findings using a range of open-weight models (1.5B-70B parameters) and GPT-4o Mini while introducing several novel contributions. We analyze the Pareto front of the games, propose a communication-free baseline to test whether successful negotiations are possible without agent interaction, evaluate recent small language models' performance, analyze structural information leakage in model responses, and implement an inequality metric to assess negotiation fairness. Our results demonstrate that smaller models (<10B parameters) struggle with format adherence and coherent responses, but larger open-weight models can approach proprietary model performance. Additionally, in many scenarios, single-agent approaches can achieve comparable results to multi-agent negotiations, challenging assumptions about the necessity of agent communication to perform well on the benchmark. This work also provides insights into the accessibility, fairness, environmental impact, and privacy considerations of LLM-based negotiation systems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is not a panacea for effortlessly solving the planet's environmental problems. AI still sparks passionate and dystopian predictions within some parts of the academic community, especially in the natural sciences. For some, the existence of AI tools means an existential threat to human creativity.10 Concerns about the increasing environmental costs of carbon emissions1 and water use demanded by information and communication technologies are also on the horizon. These viewpoints, however, overlook the advantages of employing AI in biodiversity research.

Despite increasing discussions on open-source Artificial Intelligence (AI), existing research lacks a discussion on the transparency and accessibility of state-of-the-art (SoTA) Large Language Models (LLMs). The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has recently released its first formal definition of open-source software. This definition, when combined with standard dictionary definitions and the sparse published literature, provide an initial framework to support broader accessibility to AI models such as LLMs, but more work is essential to capture the unique dynamics of openness in AI. In addition, concerns about open-washing, where models claim openness but lack full transparency, has been raised, which limits the reproducibility, bias mitigation, and domain adaptation of these models. In this context, our study critically analyzes SoTA LLMs from the last five years, including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, LLaMA, and others, to assess their adherence to transparency standards and the implications of partial openness. Specifically, we examine transparency and accessibility from two perspectives: open-source vs. open-weight models. Our findings reveal that while some models are labeled as open-source, this does not necessarily mean they are fully open-sourced. Even in the best cases, open-source models often do not report model training data, and code as well as key metrics, such as weight accessibility, and carbon emissions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically examines the transparency and accessibility of over 100 different SoTA LLMs through the dual lens of open-source and open-weight models. The findings open avenues for further research and call for responsible and sustainable AI practices to ensure greater transparency, accountability, and ethical deployment of these models.(DeepSeek transparency, ChatGPT accessibility, open source, DeepSeek open source)

Model Extraction Attacks (MEAs) threaten modern machine learning systems by enabling adversaries to steal models, exposing intellectual property and training data. With the increasing deployment of machine learning models in distributed computing environments, including cloud, edge, and federated learning settings, each paradigm introduces distinct vulnerabilities and challenges. Without a unified perspective on MEAs across these distributed environments, organizations risk fragmented defenses, inadequate risk assessments, and substantial economic and privacy losses. This survey is motivated by the urgent need to understand how the unique characteristics of cloud, edge, and federated deployments shape attack vectors and defense requirements. We systematically examine the evolution of attack methodologies and defense mechanisms across these environments, demonstrating how environmental factors influence security strategies in critical sectors such as autonomous vehicles, healthcare, and financial services. By synthesizing recent advances in MEAs research and discussing the limitations of current evaluation practices, this survey provides essential insights for developing robust and adaptive defense strategies. Our comprehensive approach highlights the importance of integrating protective measures across the entire distributed computing landscape to ensure the secure deployment of machine learning models.

Consistency is a fundamental dimension of trustworthiness in Large Language Models (LLMs). For humans to be able to trust LLM-based applications, their outputs should be consistent when prompted with inputs that carry the same meaning or intent. Despite this need, there is no known mechanism to control and guide LLMs to be more consistent at inference time. In this paper, we introduce a novel alignment strategy to maximize semantic consistency in LLM outputs. Our proposal is based on Chain of Guidance (CoG), a multi-step prompting technique that generates highly consistent outputs from LLMs. For closed-book question-answering (Q&A) tasks, when compared to direct prompting, the outputs generated using CoG show improved consistency. While other approaches like template-based responses and majority voting may offer alternative paths to consistency, our work focuses on exploring the potential of guided prompting. We use synthetic data sets comprised of consistent input-output pairs to fine-tune LLMs to produce consistent and correct outputs. Our fine-tuned models are more than twice as consistent compared to base models and show strong generalization capabilities by producing consistent outputs over datasets not used in the fine-tuning process.

Policymakers are increasingly using development cost and compute as proxies for AI model capabilities and risks. Recent laws have introduced regulatory requirements that are contingent on specific thresholds. However, technical ambiguities in how to perform this accounting could create loopholes that undermine regulatory effectiveness. This paper proposes seven principles for designing practical AI cost and compute accounting standards that (1) reduce opportunities for strategic gaming, (2) avoid disincentivizing responsible risk mitigation, and (3) enable consistent implementation across companies and jurisdictions.