The 35th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 29th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJACI-ECAI 2026) distinguished paper awards recognise some of the best papers presented at the conference each year. This year, three articles were named as distinguished papers . In approval-based budget division, the task is to allocate a divisible resource to the candidates based on the voters' approval preferences over the candidates. For this setting, Brandl et al. [2021] have shown that no distribution rule can be strategyproof, efficient, and fair at the same time. In this paper, we aim to circumvent this impossibility theorem by focusing on approximate strategyproofness.

Multimodal large language models have unlocked new possibilities for various multimodal tasks. However, their potential in image manipulation detection remains unexplored. When directly applied to the IMD task, M-LLMs often produce reasoning texts that suffer from hallucinations and overthinking. To address this, we propose ForgerySleuth, which leverages M-LLMs to perform comprehensive clue fusion and generate segmentation outputs indicating specific regions that are tampered with. Moreover, we construct the ForgeryAnalysis dataset through the Chain-of-Clues prompt, which includes analysis and reasoning text to upgrade the image manipulation detection task. A data engine is also introduced to build a largerscale dataset for the pre-training phase. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of ForgeryAnalysis and show that ForgerySleuth significantly outperforms existing methods in generalization, robustness, and explainability.

This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics, such as differing fairness definitions or trade-offs between accuracy and privacy, should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated. We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits: (1) Normative Pluralism: maintaining a full suite of potentially contradictory metrics ensures that the diverse moral stances and stakeholder values inherent in RAI are adequately represented; (2) Epistemological Completeness: using multiple, sometimes conflicting, metrics captures multifaceted ethical concepts more fully and preserves greater informational fidelity than any single, simplified definition; (3) Implicit Regularization: jointly optimizing for theoretically conflicting objectives discourages overfitting to any one metric, steering models toward solutions with better generalization and robustness under real-world complexities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human users in interactive settings such as therapy, education, and social role-play. While these simulations enable scalable training and evaluation of AI agents, off-the-shelf LLMs often drift from their assigned personas, contradict earlier statements, or abandon role-appropriate behavior. We introduce a unified framework for evaluating and improving persona consistency in LLM-generated dialogue. We define three automatic metrics--prompt-to-line consistency, line-to-line consistency, and Q&A consistency--that capture different types of persona drift and validate each against human annotations. Using these metrics as reward signals, we apply multiturn reinforcement learning to fine-tune LLMs for three user roles: a patient, a student, and a social chat partner. Our method reduces inconsistency by over 55%, resulting in more coherent, faithful, and trustworthy simulated users.

However, isolating these visual features is challenging due to the absence of annotated datasets.

This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics, such as differing fairness definitions or trade-offs between accuracy and privacy, should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated. We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits: (1) Normative Pluralism: maintaining a full suite of potentially contradictory metrics ensures that the diverse moral stances and stakeholder values inherent in RAI are adequately represented; (2) Epistemological Completeness: using multiple, sometimes conflicting, metrics captures multifaceted ethical concepts more fully and preserves greater informational fidelity than any single, simplified definition; (3) Implicit Regularization: jointly optimizing for theoretically conflicting objectives discourages overfitting to any one metric, steering models toward solutions with better generalization and robustness under real-world complexities.

We propose a novel approach for disentangling visual and semantic features from the backbones of pre-trained diffusion models, enabling visual correspondence in a manner analogous to the well-established semantic correspondence. While diffusion model backbones are known to encode semantically rich features, they must also contain visual features to support their image synthesis capabilities. However, isolating these visual features is challenging due to the absence of annotated datasets. To address this, we introduce an automated pipeline that constructs image pairs with annotated semantic and visual correspondences based on existing subject-driven image generation datasets, and design a contrastive architecture to separate the two feature types. Leveraging the disentangled representations, we propose a new metric, Visual Semantic Matching (VSM), that quantifies visual inconsistencies in subject-driven image generation. Empirical results show that our approach outperforms global feature-based metrics such as CLIP, DINO, and vision--language models in quantifying visual inconsistencies while also enabling spatial localization of inconsistent regions. To our knowledge, this is the first method that supports both quantification and localization of inconsistencies in subject-driven generation, offering a valuable tool for advancing this task.

Gödel's seminal work directly contradicted one of the great minds of mathematics and limited the field forever Kurt Gödel, the man who ruined mathematics, was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. He was born in 1906, smack-bang in the middle of the greatest crisis that maths has ever known. Just a few decades later, he would help resolve this turmoil, but in doing so doom mathematicians to a smaller world than the one that came before. Mathematics, as an intellectual framework, is incredibly powerful. The entire point is taking one set of logical ideas and using them to build another, making maths the closest thing we have to a cognitive perpetual-motion machine - there is always a new mathematical idea lurking across the horizon, and we just need to assemble the steps to get there.

We present a novel statistical framework for analyzing stereotypes in large language models (LLMs) by systematically estimating the bias and variation in their generation. Current evaluation metrics in the alignment literature often overlook the randomness of stereotypes caused by the inconsistent generative behavior of LLMs. For example, this inconsistency can result in LLMs displaying contradictory stereotypes, including those related to gender or race, for identical professions across varied contexts. Neglecting such inconsistency could lead to misleading conclusions in alignment evaluations and hinder the accurate assessment of the risk of LLM applications perpetuating or amplifying social stereotypes and unfairness.This work proposes a Bias-Volatility Framework (BVF) that estimates the probability distribution function of LLM stereotypes. Specifically, since the stereotype distribution fully captures an LLM's generation variation, BVF enables the assessment of both the likelihood and extent to which its outputs are against vulnerable groups, thereby allowing for the quantification of the LLM's aggregated discrimination risk. Furthermore, we introduce a mathematical framework to decompose an LLM's aggregated discrimination risk into two components: bias risk and volatility risk, originating from the mean and variation of LLM's stereotype distribution, respectively. We apply BVF to assess 12 commonly adopted LLMs and compare their risk levels. Our findings reveal that: i) Bias risk is the primary cause of discrimination risk in LLMs; ii) Most LLMs exhibit significant pro-male stereotypes for nearly all careers; iii) Alignment with reinforcement learning from human feedback lowers discrimination by reducing bias, but increases volatility; iv) Discrimination risk in LLMs correlates with key sociol-economic factors like professional salaries. Finally, we emphasize that BVF can also be used to assess other dimensions of generation inconsistency's impact on LLM behavior beyond stereotypes, such as knowledge mastery.