Value-Preserving Architectures for Agentic AI Systems

The emergence of agentic AI and LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) presents unprecedented opportunities for automating complex tasks, while simultaneously raising critical concerns about the preservation of fundamental human-centered values, such as privacy, fairness, and safety. Although software engineering has traditionally focused on functional correctness, the adoption of LLMs and AI agents into complex socio-technical systems has intensified the need for responsible software engineering and robust value alignment. In MAS, architectural design decisions, such as coordination mechanisms, communication protocols, and system topologies, play a central role in shaping system behavior and the outcomes they produce. This paper argues that architectural choices influence not only the functionality and performance of MAS but can also promote value-oriented system behavior. Therefore, we investigate how different architectural designs support different human-centered values, discussing the following value-preserving architectural patterns: (i) a privacy-aware architecture with a federated topology, (ii) a distributed architecture to promote pluralism and diversity, and (iii) a guard-agent architecture to detect and mitigate unfairness. Finally, we introduce representative use cases to illustrate the proposed architectures in real-world scenarios. By linking architectural design with human-centered values, this work lays the foundation for a unified set of architectural patterns and guidelines towards the design of trustworthy MAS.

Portable Causal Fairness Across Synthetic Data Generator Families

When a statistical agency or regulator releases synthetic data in place of sensitive records, it chooses the generator that produces the table, and can shape that generator so unfair pathways are absent. DECAF made this concrete on one non-private GAN: three fairness definitions become three sets of edge cuts on the generator's causal graph. Whether the mechanism belongs to DECAF, or to causal factorisation itself, was untested. We port all three definitions to nine generators from three unrelated families (marginals-based, GAN, and diffusion, each with differentially private variants), across three levels of formal privacy guarantee, over 2,520 matched-pair runs on Adult and COMPAS datasets. The mechanism transfers everywhere, and our new causal diffusion backbone yields the fairest release of any family we tested, at fidelity close to the marginals tier. Applying the cut barely moves fidelity, only costs a downstream classifier about $0.07$ to $0.15$ AUC on average, and adding privacy guarantees don't make the data less fair.

Beyond Outcome Gaps: Process-Aware Fairness Diagnosis for LLM-based Multi-Agent Decision Systems

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly considered for high-stakes decision-making, yet outcome-based fairness audits can miss where risks arise within the decision trajectory. We present SCOPED-Hiring, a process-aware fairness diagnosis pipeline for LLM-based hiring MAS. SCOPED-Hiring constructs controlled resume variants, runs role-based hiring committees, logs over 311K structured decision trajectories, and converts trajectory fields into quantitative fairness signals organized by six diagnostic lenses: final outcome, counterfactual, process, pathway, dynamic, and design effects. SCOPED-Hiring reveals that balanced final hire rates can mask hidden trajectory unfairness in multi-agent decision trajectories: career gaps trigger suspicion, proxy cues shape qualification judgments, and identity cues lead to unequal investigation. Targeted repair guided by these diagnoses reduces total layered burden by 72.3% while shifting the hire rate by only 1.86 pp, showing that process diagnosis can guide effective repair. Project Page: https://scoped-hiring-project-page.vercel.app/

Causal Evidentiary Governance for High-Risk Machine Learning Systems

Machine learning systems deployed for credit, hiring, and resource distribution are increasingly subject to regulatory oversight from policies such as the EU AI Act and GDPR. Current fairness governance practices rely on observational fairness metrics, post-hoc explainability, and immutable audit logs, but provide limited support for causal attribution and efficient evidentiary verification. We introduce Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework in which regulated institutions commit to a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) that partitions causal pathways into allowable and disallowed groups. The Causal Harm Rate measures prediction variation attributable to disallowed causal pathways. Each decision is accompanied by a signed Decision-Evidence Packet (DEP), cryptographically binding the prediction to a digest of the published DAG and path-specific attributions. DEP digests can be appended to a Merkle tree to enable logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs. We validate CEG through a two-layer empirical methodology using demographic summaries from four years of PMA credit supervisory data to construct 10,000 synthetic credit applicants across four strategic DAG counterfactuals. Causal Harm Rate isolates injected causal effects more clearly than demographic parity or equalized odds. Cross-model validation and ablation studies assess robustness. Evaluation on the German Credit dataset shows that harm associated with specific causal pathways can be substantially understated by associational fairness metrics. Finally, a proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates operationally plausible throughput and highlights relevant performance tradeoffs.

Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

Fairness in multi-class multi-group classification problems via contextial coherent risk measures

We propose a new design of fair classifiers for multi-class classification problems in the presence of vector-valued sensitive attributes. In that scenario each sensitive attribute has multiple values and forms several groups relevant to the fairness consideration. Naturally those groups are overlapping and one should also analyze the interaction of factors. Additionally, the decision makers aided by the classification should not violate individual rights at the expense of satisfying fairness metrics at the group level. We propose an approach using the theory and methods of coherent measures of risk aiming at resolving the fairness challenges. Further, we propose a specialized numerical method for solving the resulting optimization problem. The method scales well with the increase of the number of observations. Additionally, we note that the obtained classifier is robust with respect to corrupted data or to situation when data is scarce. We demonstrate the advantages of the proposed framework in comparison to the support-vector machine framework and other methods handling fairness.

A Geometric Theory of Robust Fairness Audits

Neighborhood-based fairness audits evaluate individual fairness by comparing predictions among similar individuals in feature space. Despite their widespread use, little is known about the robustness of the auditing procedure itself. Because these audits rely on nearest neighbor relationships, small perturbations in feature space can alter local neighborhoods and produce different fairness assessments even when model predictions remain unchanged. We develop a geometric framework for analyzing the robustness of neighborhood-based fairness audits under bounded perturbations. Our analysis establishes sufficient conditions for neighborhood invariance, quantifies how neighborhood replacement propagates to audit instability, and introduces audit volatility, a measure of the expected sensitivity of fairness audits under repeated perturbations. Experiments on benchmark datasets support the theoretical analysis and show that the proposed framework explains the observed stability of neighborhood-based fairness audits.

Fairness-Aware Mixture-of-Experts via Subgroup Reweighting and Gate Regularization

Deep learning models often produce performance disparities across demographic groups, due to the training data imbalance with respect to sensitive attributes such as gender or age. To address this problem, existing work has explored fair representation learning, data re-sampling, and adversarial training, which can be broadly categorized into two main approaches. Single-stage methods typically learn a shared representation for fairness, but often struggle to handle heterogeneous subgroup distributions. Two-stage methods learn representations separately from the final prediction task, which can lead to misalignment between fairness objectives and downstream predictions. We identify routing-induced bias, a failure mode in which subgroup imbalance drives the gating network to route subgroups onto a few experts, and propose an end-to-end Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) framework that corrects it. Specifically, we apply subgroup reweighting to correct data imbalance, and introduce gate entropy regularization to prevent routing from collapsing onto subgroup attributes, keeping expert utilization both balanced and interpretable. Beyond improving fairness, the routing distribution offers an interpretable view of how subgroups are allocated across experts. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves fairness while maintaining competitive predictive performance.

MASH-Bench: Diagnosing Cross-Source Failure in Mass-Shooting Risk Classification

Public mass-shooting databases differ substantially in coverage, feature availability, and reporting practices, creating challenges for machine-learning models that must generalize across data sources. We introduce MASH-Bench, a harmonized benchmark of 6,968 incidents from four U.S. databases: Kaggle, Mother Jones, Stanford MSA, and the Gun Violence Archive (GVA). We evaluate cross-source risk classification using leave-one-dataset-out (LODO) evaluation. Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM achieve VeryHigh-risk recall of 0.68-0.89 on the curated sources but generalize poorly to GVA, where mean recall drops to 0.20 and precision to 0.0004. To investigate the source of this degradation, we conduct a controlled feature-masking ablation that removes the five features unavailable in GVA from the curated sources. The resulting recall collapse to zero provides evidence that feature completeness is a major contributor to the observed cross-source failure. We further evaluate three domain-adaptation approaches: DANN, CORAL, and importance weighting. DANN improves VeryHigh-risk recall on GVA by 0.282 (95% CI [0.11, 0.47], p = 0.003), although precision remains low, whereas CORAL and importance weighting yield zero recall. Oracle prior-shift recalibration likewise fails to recover VeryHigh-risk predictions, indicating that label-side correction alone is insufficient under the observed feature deficiencies. A per-group audit further identifies substantial disparities associated with media-attributed mental-health labels. Overall, these results indicate that, in MASH-Bench, cross-source generalization is constrained more by feature completeness and label prevalence than by classifier choice. The benchmark provides a controlled setting for diagnosing these effects in cross-source risk classification.

Is Your Neighborhood Safe? Place-based Stigma in Large Language Models' Urban Safety Judgments

Large language models are increasingly used to inform safety decisions in cities, such as where it is safe to walk, rent, or travel. We ask whether such judgments track measured risk or the patterns attached to an urban neighborhood's name. We probe seven instruct-tuned models under three conditions that dissociate name from geography: coordinates-only, name-only, and name+coordinates, across 186 neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Chicago, joined to violent crime and American Community Survey data. First, ratings are nearly flat under coordinates for six of seven models, while names carry most between neighborhood variation and are moderately calibrated to violent crime; only at frontier scale does the coordinate channel show appreciable variation. Second, names lower safety ratings more for neighborhoods with higher shares of the locally dominant marginalized group (percent Black in Chicago, percent Hispanic in Los Angeles), and this name effect tracks demographic share in all seven models and both cities. In Los Angeles, where demographic share and crime are more separable, the effect survives controls for crime and income and is confirmed by crime-matched pairs. An enforcement-elasticity analysis further shows that over-caution tracks near-fully-reported homicide rather than discretionary, deployment-driven offenses. Third, the effect scales with geographic knowledge: models that better distinguish real neighborhoods apply more demographic stereotype to them. Because neighborhood names carry both genuine crime signal and demographic stereotype, removing names reduces both bias and accuracy. We discuss implications for deploying LLMs in advice and decision-support settings.

Fairness-Aware Network Embeddings: Methods, Applications, and Challenges

Network embedding methods learn low-dimensional representations of graph-structured data to support downstream tasks such as node classification, link prediction, and influence maximization. However, real-world networks often reflect structural inequalities arising from demographic imbalances, homophily, and other societal biases, which fairness-agnostic embedding methods can encode and amplify. To address this issue, numerous fairness-aware network embedding methods have been proposed to mitigate bias while preserving embedding utility. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of fairness-aware network embeddings for complex networks. We propose a taxonomy that categorizes existing methods along three main complementary dimensions: underlying embedding approach (spectral, random walk, graph neural network, Bayesian, and method-agnostic), fairness intervention strategy (pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing), and fairness objective criterion (embedding- or task-level). We further compare methods with respect to group versus individual fairness and assumptions regarding sensitive attributes. Finally, we discuss current limitations and highlight promising future research directions. This survey provides a unified perspective on fairness-aware network embedding and serves as a reference for developing fair and trustworthy network representation learning methods.

Writing Style Similarity Reflects Academic Genealogy

As authorship attribution systems are increasingly deployed to detect ghostwritten and AI-generated papers, their errors can support accusations against legitimate authors. These systems conflate stylistic similarity with individual identity. Researchers, however, study under advisors, and inherit their stylistic quirks. We build a corpus of arXiv authors with $\geq 2$ solo papers from the Mathematics Genealogy Project graph, giving $5{,}803$ total authors and $2{,}501$ ground-truth advisor-student pairings. Using embeddings from a fine-tuned model, advisors sit $39.9\%$ closer in cosine distance to their students than a random same-field author does. Using two open models, we reproduce the effect at $12.6\%$ and $14.5\%$. Academic siblings, two students of one advisor who may never have met, sit $30.4\%$ closer across $8{,}360$ pairs, even when they studied at different institutions. Pairs who share only institution and field show negligible similarity. Given a closed-set attribution task over the same corpus, the system's errors occur on the true author's advisor, student, academic sibling, or lab mate $11$ times more often than chance.

Do Judges Behave Like Algorithms?

What if judges already behave like algorithms? As artificial intelligence and algorithms are deployed in many settings, including the judicial system, many have debated whether judges should be allowed to rely on them. Instead, we ask whether judges follow predictable, algorithmic-like rules already. If judges already follow consistent, formula-like rules based on discrete and static factors such as criminal history, age, and charge type, then judicial behavior may be improved. However, if judges rely on individualized information that cannot be identified through court data, then standards-based decision-making may be more challenging to understand or improve. This work explores these questions by studying judicial decision-making in misdemeanor bail hearings in Harris County, Texas. Using available court data, we investigate whether magistrate judges follow what resembles an algorithm; whether they consider the same variables in their decision-making; and whether they are consistent with themselves and with each other. To do this, we train machine learning models for each judge, measure variable importance metrics to determine important variables for each judge's decision-making, and analyze outcomes of similar cases for judges. Our results reveal that these judges generally behave algorithmically: their decisions can be captured by small, interpretable formulas. However, in some cases, judges differ substantially, leading to surprising inconsistency and unequal treatment across similar defendants. Identifying cases where algorithms do not explain judicial decision-making can improve the justice system by focusing attention on decisions where individualized standards, rather than rules, better explains outcomes.

Fairness in Link Prediction Beyond Demographic Parity: A Reproducibility Study

In fair ranked link prediction, demographic parity ($Δ_\mathrm{DP}$) is a common fairness metric. Yet, Mattos et al. (2025) argue that it fails to detect exposure bias because it ignores where links appear in the ranking. In this study, we reproduce this claim by showing that $Δ_\mathrm{DP}$ can indicate aggregate parity even when some subgroup-pair links are systematically ranked lower than others. The proposed rank-aware Normalized Discounted KL-divergence (NDKL), however, does detect such disparities. We also reproduce the effectiveness of MORAL, a post-processing method that improves exposure-based fairness while maintaining competitive utility. Beyond reproduction, we assess robustness using synthetic homophily settings, categorical sensitive attributes, and additional fairness and utility metrics, including subgroup-pair-adapted Attention-Weighted Rank Fairness (AWRF). Overall, our results show that exposure-based metrics uncover biases hidden by $Δ_\mathrm{DP}$ and that MORAL reduces these biases with minimal utility loss across diverse settings and datasets. We release a corrected, reproducible implementation at https://github.com/Floris93100/reproducing-MORAL.

A Fair Objective for Human-Empowerment-Preserving AI: Desiderata, Design, and Likely Behavioral Consequences

This paper explores the idea of promoting well-being and safety in human-AI interactions by forcing AI agents explicitly to empower humans and to manage the power balance between humans and AI agents in a desirable way. Using a principled, partially axiomatic approach based on desirable properties, we design a parametrizable and decomposable objective function for AI systems that represents an inequality- and risk-averse long-term aggregate of human power. It can take into account models of human bounded rationality and social norms, and crucially, considers a wide variety of possible human goals. We prove how certain desiderata enforce particular functional forms and restrict parameter ranges. We exemplify the consequences of softly maximizing this metric in several paradigmatic situations and describe what instrumental sub-goals it will likely imply.

Beyond Aggregate Calibration: Decomposing Income-Conditional Recall Disparities in Automated Credit Default Prediction

Data-centric curation pipelines frequently rely on model confidence scores to flag and filter noisy or mislabeled training instances. Evaluating this filtering convention on a large-scale consumer lending sample (LendingClub, N = 1,344,936) uncovers an underlying demographic asymmetry: high-income defaulters are disproportionately classified as label noise relative to low-income defaulters (Cramer's V approximately 0.03-0.07). Re-examining this behavior through the lens of equal opportunity [Hardt et al., 2016] reveals a far more severe discrepancy: a 16.86 percentage point gap in true positive rate (recall) between high- and low-income borrowers who ultimately defaulted. Implementing a sequential feature-blinding methodology allows us to isolate the drivers of this disparity across three distinct mechanisms: (1) direct reliance on self-reported applicant income; (2) algorithmic absorption of upstream institutional bias encoded within origination interest rates; and (3) a residual disparity (3.55 percentage points in cross-validation; 2.56 percentage points on a held-out test partition, Z = -4.04, p < 0.0001) that remains even after purging both income and interest rates from the model. Out-of-sample signed SHAP valuations demonstrate that this residual gap is maintained by structural proxies, most notably loan amount and home ownership status. These empirical findings show that simply blinding an algorithm to sensitive attributes fails to ensure fairness when institutional pricing decisions and behavioral proxy variables collectively reconstruct the omitted signals. We outline the practical implications of these findings for auditing data-centric AI workflows within regulated financial institutions.

Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk

Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters, in tension with supervisory expectations that adverse decisions be explainable. A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale. We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds. The predictive component is a multi-scale stacking ensemble fusing four differently regularised gradient-boosting learners with a residual network through a neural meta-learner trained on out-of-fold predictions. On a public 32,581-application credit dataset it reaches test ROC-AUC 0.9539 (95% CI [0.9462, 0.9616]) and PR-AUC 0.9137, beating the best single model by Delta-AUC = 0.0143 (p = 0.016 under a conservative independence assumption). Our central finding is asymmetric. The ranking gain is real but operationally small: at the F1-optimal threshold the ensemble avoids only six additional missed defaults out of 1,422 against a tuned random forest, cutting cost-weighted loss by under 2%. The narrative layer fails in a way prompt engineering alone does not fix. In an audited case the model named three factors as risk-increasing that the supplied attributions scored as risk-reducing, omitted the dominant driver, and introduced a feature never given to it. We trace this to properties we measure rather than assume: SHAP and LIME agree on which features matter (overlap@10 = 0.80) but not on their order (tau = 0.43, p = 0.18), and the attribution sign for the model's most sensitive input is near a coin flip across applicants (modal-sign share 0.53). Calibration (ECS = 0.117) and perturbation stability (DPD = 0.078) both fall short of our own thresholds. Constrained prompting is necessary but not sufficient: grounding must be verified after generation, not assumed.

Variable Selection in the Context of AI Fairness

Fairness in AI systems has become more important with recent regulatory demands, such as the EU AI Act. Traditional approaches often do not take into account philosophical ethics and social awareness. Variable selection processes, in particular, can introduce implicit bias, affecting equity across different subgroups. We discuss a mathematical approach that evaluates fairness in AI, aligning mathematical methodologies with ethical considerations and regulatory requirements. Our aim is to advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration to address fairness, emphasizing the importance of understanding broader ethical and societal contexts. Our approach emphasizes maintaining all potentially relevant variables to allow for more granular fairness assessments and to reduce implicit bias. The findings suggest that the exclusion of sensitive or critical variables may compromise equity between subgroups. In contrast, retaining all relevant variables could reduce implicit bias. Thus, the interdisciplinary approach could provide deeper insight into the ethical implications and compliance with regulatory standards. By integrating a mathematical approach with ethical and social awareness, we suggest more equitable outcomes and responsible AI deployment. This work underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration in effectively addressing fairness in AI systems aligned with the objectives of the European Union's AI Act, which seeks to promote trustworthy and fair AI systems.

Implementing Causal Perception: Competing SCMs and Situated Fairness

Causal perception occurs when agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs) of the same system infer different probability distributions, including the hypothetical distributions implied by each agent's SCM under the same set of interventions. It shapes how agents reason about the system and how they perceive its fairness. Causal perception is a promising probabilistic framework, but it has remained purely theoretical. This work provides the first implementation of the causal perception framework of Álvarez and Ruggieri (2025). We operationalize structural (agents disagree on the causal graph) and parametrical (agents agree on the causal graph but disagree on its weights) causal perception. We design algorithms for computing interventional and counterfactual distributions and propose suitable distance measures to quantify the disagreement. Using the German Credit dataset, we illustrate how causal perception affects accuracy and fairness in a multi-expert decision setting. We show that the perception verdict is sensitive to the choice of distance metric and threshold. We also show that causal perception changes fairness assessments and threshold-based decisions. Bias proves situated with respect to the agent's SCM, demonstrating that competing worldviews in fairness problems cannot be ignored.

FairFund-Bench: Evaluating Distributive Bias in LLM Resource Allocation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender. Recent LLM audits have produced inconsistent results, however, finding evidence of both positive and negative discrimination towards women and ethnic minorities, even for the same models. We show that this disagreement can arise from differences in audit format and introduce FairFund-Bench, a benchmark that systematically varies key features of previous audit designs: the evaluation task (rating, ranking, or allocation), comparison context (single or multi-stimulus), and whether the audit is transparent or disguised. The benchmark comprises 600 requests for financial assistance created from human-authored templates (calibrated against 1.3M real GoFundMe campaigns) across three domains, four race and two gender categories, and five causal framings of need derived from welfare deservingness theory. Across 14 models, audit format changes the direction of bias: models advantage minorities when rating claimants individually but penalize some groups when ranking them side by side. Bias magnitude, though small overall, is several times greater in disguised audits than in transparent ones, where, faced with appeals differing only in claimants' names, models overwhelmingly split funds equally. Causal framing effects, by contrast, exceed demographic effects by roughly an order of magnitude and are consistent across models and audit formats, indicating that current LLMs robustly reproduce human deservingness evaluations. The benchmark scores models on four criteria (demographic bias, deservingness alignment, cross-task consistency, and cross-context consistency), is publicly available, and can be readily adapted to other substantive domains.

The Role of Causality in Algorithmic Recourse

Algorithmic recourse aims to provide individuals with actionable changes to improve their predicted outcomes in high-stakes classification settings, such as loan and mortgage applications. However, most existing approaches focus only on flipping a model's prediction, without accounting for whether the recommended changes lead to genuine improvement in an individual's true qualifications or merely enable strategic gaming of the classifier. Consequently, deployed recourse policies can induce behavioral responses that degrade predictive accuracy and become ineffective after model retraining. In this work, we formalize this failure mode through a causal performative framework for recourse. We model how recourse actions propagate through a structural causal model, capturing interactions among features as well as their effect on the true label. These causal responses induce a non-convex optimization problem, even under standard convex losses. We characterize conditions under which performatively stable solutions exist and can be efficiently computed via simple iterative dynamics. Our analysis reveals that recourse policies that ignore causal structure can induce large, misaligned behavioral responses, whereas causal recourse leads to stable equilibria that reduce incentives for gaming. Experiments on both semi-synthetic and real credit datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms standard empirical risk minimization while reducing the need for repeated model retraining to accommodate distribution shifts caused by strategic agent behavior.

Evaluating Regional Bias in LLMs From Abstract Stereotype to Concrete Social Decision-Making

Regional bias in large language models (LLMs) may shape both perceptions of regional groups and decisions about individuals from different regions. Yet existing studies often examine these manifestations separately, leaving their structure and consequences unclear. We introduce Stereotypes-to-Decisions (S2D), a systematic framework evaluating regional bias from abstract stereotypes to concrete social decisions. Covering all 34 provincial-level administrative regions of China, S2D evaluates six LLMs using stereotype ratings of Warmth (perceived friendliness and trustworthiness) and Competence (perceived capability and intelligence), along with paired-choice tasks across Education, Occupation, and Social Interaction. Results reveal substantial regional differences in regional scores, with considerable agreement across models, especially for Competence and Occupation decisions. Furthermore, these patterns are associated with regional economic and digital development indicators and display mixed human-like stereotypes, with some regions rated highly on one dimension but poorly on the other. They also remain largely stable across Chinese and English prompts. Overall, our findings show that regional bias in LLMs is prevalent, systematic, and consequential, motivating more regionally aware evaluation and mitigation.

Parameterized Fair Resource Allocation under Diversity Constraints

Resource allocation across multiple agent groups arises in many applications including e-commerce recommendation systems, housing assignment, and course allocation, and is commonly formulated as an optimization problem with diversity constraints to ensure group fairness. Existing approaches typically enforce these constraints as hard conditions, which overly restrict the feasible solution space and often lead to suboptimal allocations. In this paper, we propose PRA, a parameterized framework for fair resource allocation under diversity constraints. Inspired by the use of risk-aversion parameters in economic models, PRA introduces a set of controllable inequality-aversion parameters to softly regulate group-level diversity, thereby enabling flexible trade-offs between fairness and allocation efficiency. With appropriately calibrated parameters, PRA yields fairness-optimal assignments that comply with the specified diversity constraints. To accommodate additional application-specific constraints, we further extend the framework to an adaptive variant, APRA. We establish that the optimality of both PRA and APRA holds regardless of the chosen fairness metric and the nature of the additional constraints, underscoring the generality and robustness of our approach. Extensive experiments on three real-world applications demonstrate that our proposed framework consistently outperforms existing baselines in both effectiveness and robustness.

The Disruptive Impact of Large Language Models on Capture the Flag Competitions and the Path Toward Fair Play

Capture the Flag (CTF) competitions are among cybersecurity's most effective training grounds, developing practical skill across cryptography, web exploitation, and binary exploitation. Large language models (LLMs) can now solve a growing share of challenges with minimal human input, raising urgent questions about fairness, the validity of rankings, and whether participation still delivers the learning that justifies the effort. This paper reports a mixed-methods study of LLM impact on modern CTFs, combining a synthesis of published benchmarks, including a recent government evaluation, case studies of live competition across three challenge categories, structured observation of the public channels where the community debates AI use, and semi-structured interviews with experienced players and organisers. We map the current human-machine capability boundary by category, showing that easy and intermediate challenges in cryptography, web, and binary exploitation are now reliably automated while narrower sub-categories continue to resist. We find that community disagreement about whether AI should be permitted is downstream of an undeclared prior question: what a competition is for. Against this backdrop we contribute a four-component safeguard framework, combining tiered competition divisions, LLM-resistant challenge design, telemetry used investigatively, and a draft community code of conduct, together with a decision tool that ties the combination of safeguards to a competition's declared purpose. The argument reaches beyond CTFs to any setting in cybersecurity where a demonstrated result is taken as evidence of an underlying ability.

Unequal Trips, Unequal Places: Diagnosing and Mitigating Delay Inequity in Autonomous Vehicle Fleet Coordination

City-scale autonomous vehicle fleet coordinators are typically optimized for aggregate travel time, yet fleet averages conceal how delay is distributed across trips and regions. We conduct a distributional audit on three real-city road-network and taxi-demand datasets from Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco. The audit reveals pervasive trip-length inequity whose direction depends on the city and coordinator. After accounting for trip length, spatial inequity becomes more pronounced as demand grows and is consistently stronger when trips are grouped by origin rather than destination. These findings motivate SPatially Aware RErouting (SPARE), a budgeted online coordination framework that assigns limited replanning capacity to delayed vehicles and redirects them using recently observed waiting pressure. SPARE provides a per-review decision guarantee and explicitly bounds online route updates. Experiments on all three datasets against six representative baselines show that SPARE delivers the strongest joint efficiency-fairness performance while retaining city-scale scalability. The results demonstrate that bounded congestion-responsive rerouting improves performance and equity without full-fleet replanning.

"Trust Junk" Leads to Unjustified Support for Highly Discriminatory Predictive Models

The persuasive power of data visualizations can go awry: for instance, in an explainable AI (XAI) context, visualizations can produce over-trust of predictive models. In this paper, we use a crowdsourced study to show that providing accurate (but superfluous or irrelevant) data in a model explanation can, in fact, result in unjustified trust and other positive beliefs about a model, even when the model is patently discriminatory and unfair. Our results suggest that XAI designers and developers need to consider the implicit or explicit rhetorics of their work, and beware of the potential of visualizations to imbue models with unearned trust.

Vertical Standardisation for High-Risk AI Systems under the EU AI Act: A Domain-Specific Framework for Algorithmic Hiring

According to the recent European legislation, high-risk AI systems will have to adapt in order to comply with requirements related to specific areas, like risk management, data quality and governance, logging and traceability, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, and accuracy, as outlined in the European Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. As the standardisation process for AI is expected to remain iterative and, so far, there are no European standards on AI fully covering the challenges of algorithmic hiring, we propose specific standardisation-oriented recommendations related to the relevant AI areas specified by the European Commission. For each of these areas, we set the context by describing the requirements that AI systems in high-risk domains, and especially in recruitment, should fulfil, as well as the activities that should be carried out to ensure their appropriate use and desired performance, in line with the requirements deriving from the AI Act. Unlike existing horizontal approaches to AI governance and standardisation, this paper contributes a vertical, domain-specific framework for algorithmic hiring, and especially ranking-based recruitment systems, by mapping the requirements of the AI Act to concrete standardisation recommendations, focusing on lifecycle discrimination risks, fairness-aware data governance, explainability, human oversight, and post-deployment monitoring in recruitment systems. Even though our recommendations were informed by the outcomes of the European project FINDHR, they are not tied to the project's technical artefacts and could be implemented using alternative methods, tools, or governance mechanisms.

The Paternalistic Filter: Epistemic Injustice and Differential Refusal in LLM-Mediated History Education for Marginalized Romanian Students

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as conversational tutors, they risk institutionalizing systemic inequalities. This study presents a systematic API audit of four LLMs acting as history tutors, evaluating 1,800 responses regarding the 1989 Romanian Revolution across five student personas varying by ethnicity and socio-economic tier. We uncover four interconnected patterns of \emph{epistemic paternalism}: (1)~\textbf{Differential Refusal}, where safety-aligned models block 76.7\% of educational requests from low-tier students; (2)~\textbf{Epistemic Gatekeeping}, evidenced by a 3$\times$ reduction in access to geopolitical complexity (e.g., the contested ``coup theory'') for marginalized learners; (3)~\textbf{Agency Theft}, a lexical shift where models like LLaMA produce a 5$\times$ higher victimization-to-politics vocabulary ratio for Roma students compared to elite peers; and (4)~\textbf{Elite Hermeneutics}, where AI tutors disproportionately withhold epistemic confidence and justification scores from low-resource demographic profiles. We argue that current safety alignment acts as a paternalistic filter, transforming conversational AI into agents of narrative segregation -- a manifestation of \emph{hermeneutical injustice} in Fricker's~\cite{fricker2007} sense that demands urgent pedagogical auditing.

From Evaluated Models to Evaluation Aids: A Multi-Evidence Study of LLM-Based Difficulty Calibration for Programming Examinations

Difficulty differences across parallel-class programming examinations affect the fairness of course assessment. This study repositions large language models from benchmark evaluation targets to auxiliary evidence sources for interpreting exam difficulty, combining AI evidence with aggregated student performance, item exposure, online-judge process data, and teacher interpretation. First, ten models solved an eight-problem final exam synchronously with 120 students: AI pass rate correlated positively with student pass rate (Spearman rho = 0.866, exact p = 0.0119), and a solving-based composite difficulty index correlated negatively with it (rho = -0.905, exact p = 0.0046). A single structured reviewer was then run via auditable API calls on a third-party OpenAI-compatible endpoint whose model label (gpt-5.6-sol) cannot authenticate an official OpenAI upstream model; call metadata and raw responses are archived. Across 79 problems from 11 parallel-class final exams, AI overall difficulty correlated with problem-level pass rate at rho = -0.871 and with non-attempt rate at rho = 0.800; in a 26-problem longitudinal Data Structures and Algorithms B sample, the correlations were -0.829 and 0.883. A 106-problem introductory-course (CS101) sample marks the boundary: the problem-level correlation weakened to rho = -0.552, and the exam-level correlation across 16 exams was near zero, with cohort composition dominating exam-level outcomes. Exposure-discount (0-0.40) and duplicate-problem perturbation tests did not change these directions. AI evidence can thus serve as an external reference for problem validation, parallel-class fairness discussion, and longitudinal quality tracking, while the model-identity boundary, single-reviewer design, and review-output instability set explicit limits: AI difficulty scales must not be used for individual student evaluation or automatic grade adjustment.

Neutralizing Structural Inequality in the Nigerian FinTech Sector

Algorithmic decision systems in financial services often rely on data proxies that inadvertently encode structural inequalities. This paper introduces a hierarchical human-AI triage model for Point of Sale fraud detection in the Nigerian FinTech sector. Adopting a We Are All Equal worldview, we address the challenge of discrimination laundering, wherein the system misinterprets infrastructure related aleatoric noise such as rural network timeouts as fraudulent intent. We implement a three-tier routing policy utilizing a calibrated ensemble model as a primary filter. The policy routes transactions characterized by epistemic uncertainty such as cold start new accounts to specialist analysts while reserving high stakes cases for a senior supervisor. To manage finite human capacity, we utilize a dynamic shadow price to ration human attention and implement a random audit mechanism to prevent human skill atrophy. Our experimental results demonstrate a statistically significant 1.88\% complementarity gap and a 24.79\% percentage point gain in fraud recall over an autonomous baseline. Crucially, the model reduces the regional performance gap from 19.43 to 2.88 percentage points, neutralizing structural bias. Hierarchical collaboration provides a robust mechanism for substantive equality of opportunity, ensuring that rural accounts are not excluded from the digital economy due to environmental brute luck.