Conformal prediction (CP) and its extension, conformal risk control (CRC), are established frameworks for quantifying uncertainty in supervised machine learning through formal guarantees. However, recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) have been driven by unsupervised generative models, such as large language models (LLMs) and image generators, which are not directly compatible with CP or CRC. In this work we introduce conformal generation (Conf-Gen), a general framework adapting CRC to generative tasks while relaxing its theoretical assumptions. Conf-Gen unifies and generalizes previous attempts to apply CP to LLMs, and extends conformal methodology to entirely new domains. We demonstrate the flexibility of Conf-Gen through some novel applications, including obtaining conformal guarantees on: image generators producing non-memorized images, conversational AI systems having asked enough clarifying questions, and the output of AI agents being correct.

Safety defenses for large language models (LLMs) are typically trained and evaluated on single-turn prompts, yet real attacks often unfold as indirect, multi-turn probing. To defend against this more nuanced form of deception, we present a unified pipeline that generates realistic multi-turn deceptive question sets via multi-objective genetic prompt optimization with co-evolving mutation operators. We validate this dataset through a human study, which also revealed that early generations yielded the most convincing deception and practical constraints such as adherence filtering and ordering effects. Using this data, we were able to detect deceptive attempts to access prohibited information using simple, explainable geometric signals in embedding space coupled with a lightweight feed-forward classifier. Three geometric features (angular coverage, distance ratio, and linearity) augmented with pairwise similarity statistics led to a compact predictive model that achieved consistently high recall (0.89) across base, reworded, and truncated (three-turn) scenarios, with test-time F1 ranging from 0.74-0.86. The results support a central hypothesis that multi-turn deceptive intent leaves a stable geometric footprint that enables lightweight, transparent screening without expensive end-to-end training. We further discuss responsible uses, limitations, and paths toward larger, more diverse human-evaluated datasets. The primary contribution to artificial intelligence is the multi-objective evolutionary framework for prompt generation, and the engineering application is the deployment of a lightweight geometric detection system for LLM safety infrastructure.

Interpretable text representations should expose coordinates that are not only predictive, but also meaningful enough for independent auditors to apply. Existing discriminative representations often use anonymous embedding directions, while concept-bottleneck and LLM-assisted methods attach natural-language names to features without ensuring that those definitions are reproducible or distinct from the target label. We propose an operational criterion for interpretable discriminative text representations: each coordinate should satisfy conceptual clarity, measured by chance-adjusted agreement between independent annotators applying the feature definition, and label disentanglement, meaning the feature should not merely paraphrase the prediction target. We instantiate this criterion in LLM-assisted Feature Discovery (LFD), an iterative method that proposes lexical and semantic features from contrastive outcome-opposed text pairs, screens candidates using cross-LLM Cohen's $κ$, and selects features by residual held-out predictive gain. A stylized analysis connects the $κ$ screen to a per-feature annotation-noise bound, formalizing agreement as a reliability check. Across ten text-classification tasks spanning seven corpora, LFD matches the predictive performance of a strong text bottleneck baseline while producing substantially clearer and less label-entangled features. Human audits with 232 raters show that LFD features achieve higher human--human and human--LLM agreement than baseline concepts, and raters consistently judge them as less label-leaking. These results suggest that agreement-tested, label-disentangled coordinates provide a practical auditability standard for interpretable text classification.

More than a trillion dollars are lost every year due to system failures. To resolve them, engineers must troubleshoot outages quickly. An important task in incident response involves analyzing observability metrics, or time series data that snapshot the health of software systems. For example, an engineer for a service may use Datadog to answer questions like "When did latency start increasing?" and "What metrics outside of latency are also behaving abnormally?" to localize the root cause of the anomalous behavior. These time series question-answering (TSQA) tasks are essential for engineers, and present challenging and necessary tasks for SRE models and agents to perform.

Domain adaptation faces a fundamental paradox in the cold-start regime. When target data is scarce, statistical methods fail to distinguish relevant source domains from irrelevant ones, which often leads to negative transfer. In this paper, we address this challenge by leveraging expert textual descriptions of the target domain, a resource that is often available but overlooked. We propose a probabilistic framework that translates these semantic descriptions into a choice model, namely a Language-Induced Prior (LIP), that learns the preferences from a pretrained Large Language Model (LLM). The LIP is then integrated into an Expectation-Maximization algorithm to identify source relevance. Methodologically, this framework is compatible with any parametric model where a likelihood is available. It allows the LIP to guide the selection of sources when target signals are weak, while gradually refining these choices as samples accumulate. Theoretically, we prove that the estimator roughly matches an oracle cold-start MSE under a correct prior, while remaining asymptotically consistent regardless of the quality of the LIP. Empirically, we validated the framework on a descriptive (Gaussian estimation), a predictive (C-MAPSS dataset), and a prescriptive task (MuJoCo hopper).

In this piece, we reflect on AIES 2025, and outline the conversations and presentations from a discussion session on LLMs in the context of clinical usage and human rights. This is a crosspost from the latest issue of AI Matters, published by the ACM SIAGI. This year's conference on artificial intelligence, ethics and society (AIES) took place in the north of Madrid within the 180m-high tower block that forms the vertical campus of IE University. The event kicked off with a welcome from the chairs and organising committee members, with this opening session also featuring the conference best paper awards. Topics covered during the three-day event included mitigating bias, integrating AI into the workplace, evaluating LLMs in clinical settings, power dynamics in AI ecosystems, and dataset creation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where the available context is incomplete or degraded. We argue that an LLM generating answers under incomplete context can be viewed as an implicit imputer, and evaluated against a criterion from the multiple imputation (MI) literature: uncertainty should scale with the amount of missing information. We assess this criterion on SQuAD, using a controlled framework in which context availability is varied across five levels. We evaluate two answer-level uncertainty measures that can be estimated from repeated sampling: sampling-based confidence (empirical mode frequency) and response entropy. Confidence fails to reflect increasing missingness: it remains high even as accuracy collapses. Entropy, by contrast, increases with context removal, consistent with the MI analogy, and explains substantially more variance in accuracy than confidence across all evidence levels (quadratic $R^2$ gap up to 0.057). We further introduce a black-box diagnostic $ρ_R(α)$ that estimates the proportion of baseline uncertainty resolved by context level $α$, requiring only repeated sampling with and without context. These results suggest that entropy is a more responsive black-box uncertainty measure than confidence under incomplete context.

Digital personas powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human survey respondents, yet it remains unclear when they can reliably approximate human survey findings. We answer this question using the LISS panel, constructing personas from respondents' background variables and pre-2023 survey histories, then testing them against the same respondents' held-out post-cutoff answers. Across four persona architectures, three LLMs, and two prediction tasks, we assess performance at the question, respondent, distributional, equity, and clustering levels. Digital personas improve alignment with human response distributions, especially in domains tied to stable attributes and values, but remain limited for individual prediction and fail to recover multivariate respondent structure. Retrieval-augmented architectures provide the clearest gains, but performance depends more on human response structure than on model choice: personas perform best for low-variability questions and common respondent patterns, and worst for subjective, heterogeneous, or rare responses. Our results provide practical guidance on when digital personas could be appropriate for survey research and when human validation remains necessary.

LLMs excel at predictive tasks and complex reasoning tasks, but many high-value deployments rely on decisions under uncertainty, for example, which tool to call, which expert to consult, or how many resources to invest. While the usefulness and feasibility of Bayesian approaches remain unclear for LLM inference, this position paper argues that the control layer of an agentic AI system (that orchestrates LLMs and tools) is a clear case where Bayesian principles should shine. Bayesian decision theory provides a framework for agentic systems that can help to maintain beliefs over task-relevant latent quantities, to update these beliefs from observed agentic and human-AI interactions, and to choose actions. Making LLMs themselves explicitly Bayesian belief-updating engines remains computationally intensive and conceptually nontrivial as a general modeling target. In contrast, this paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system, not necessarily the LLM agent parameters. This paper articulates practical properties for Bayesian control that fit modern agentic AI systems and human-AI collaboration, and provides concrete examples and design patterns to illustrate how calibrated beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.

Evolutionary methods have long been useful for analysis and explanation in genetics, biology, ecology, and related fields. In this work, we extend these methods to neural networks, specifically large language models (LLMs), to better analyze and explain relationships among models. We show how relating weights to genotypes and output text to phenotypes can improve our understanding of model lineage, important datasets, the roles of different model layers, and visualization of model relationships. We demonstrate this in a controlled experiment, where our estimated evolutionary trees reliably recover the topology of the ground-truth training tree. We further identify the most important weight layers according to weight differences and show through phenotypic experiments that one training dataset appears to contribute more useful information than the others. Finally, we generate an unsupervised evolutionary tree of black-box foundation models. Throughout, we provide visualizations that support a clearer understanding of evolutionary relationships among LLMs.