The Inference Report

Generative AI used as a capable servant has greatly accelerated intellectual work, but it also risks eroding human epistemic agency by encouraging uncritical acceptance of AI-generated reasoning. This creates a need for mechanisms that preserve human agency by augmenting metacognition during AI-assisted intellectual work. To address this, we propose the Synthesis-Analysis Reciprocity Model, which views intellectual construction as a reciprocal interaction between Synthesis, which combines components into an artifact, and Analysis, which critically evaluates them against objective indicators and constrains subsequent synthesis. Grounded in this model, we present the Vibe Compiler, a research-logic compiler that helps researchers transform vague ideas (Vibes) into coherent research logic. The system compiles these ideas using a research paper ontology of sixteen academic parameters. Compilation failures indicate missing logical components; rather than filling them autonomously, the system prompts researchers with reflective questions that encourage them to develop the missing reasoning. The framework characterizes structural gaps along two dimensions: cognitive function (Synthesis vs. Analysis) and executing agent (human vs. AI), yielding four origin types that identify where breakdowns arise. Our design emphasizes AI probing its own synthesized output to stimulate human metacognition, encouraging researchers to remain managers who critically direct and validate AI-generated reasoning rather than passive recipients. Experience with a prototype built on NotebookLM and Gemini suggests that effective AI-assisted reasoning depends less on sophisticated prompting than on the knowledge structure provided to the AI. This paper was developed using the proposed Vibe Compiler.

As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their moral reasoning becomes essential. Decisions about scarce medical resources often hinge on judgments of responsibility, particularly when patients' own actions contribute to illness. We investigate how LLMs reason about responsibility and its consequences, tracing their judgments across successive levels, from the behavior, to the resulting illness, to the denial of care. We evaluate a wide range of LLMs, spanning different model families and capability levels, on various clinical vignettes adapted from prior studies. Our results identify a judgment-consequence gap: LLMs largely agree with humans that patients bear responsibility for health-harming behaviors, yet overwhelmingly refuse to let that judgment influence how they allocate scarce resources. Specifically, LLMs default to random allocation, whereas humans consistently favor the less-culpable patient. Compared to humans, LLMs also place greater emphasis on access to information, reducing responsibility judgments when health-risk knowledge is unavailable. These findings reveal that LLMs apply a systematically different moral framework than humans when responsibility and resource scarcity intersect, surprisingly often amplifying normative disagreement with humans as reasoning capability increases.

Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.

The use of e-commerce mobile applications is expanding in Nigeria, creating both opportunities and risks, including fraud and reduced user control over digital technologies, raising concerns about digital sovereignty. This research examines how Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Nigerian mobile applications affects digital sovereignty, examined through platform transparency as a key indicator of user awareness and control. Using an interpretive approach, the research combines the forensic analysis of selected Android applications with contextual document analysis to identify AI features and evaluate disclosure practices. The findings show that AI is widely implemented in the applications, yet transparency about its use remains limited. A socio-economic analysis of Nigeria further shows an increasing dependence on consumer digital platforms, moderate AI awareness, and uneven patterns of interaction. By providing empirical evidence on AI transparency and platform practices, this study advances understanding of individual digital sovereignty and highlights challenges for protecting user control in AI-driven digital environments.

Against the backdrop of violence in police interactions with the U.S. public, we explore how deferentially police officers speak to virtual characters depicted as Black adult males in vir- tual reality (VR) simulations. We evaluate the effect of seeing and communicating with these characters through a causal in- ference lens, where the assignment of the Black man character to a police officer and simulation is the treatment variable. Our (marginal) average treatment effect AT E measures the social impact of the character on the deference of officer statements with each turn of the conversation. Soberingly, we find that most officers speak less deferentially to Black man characters, except for White, biracial, and multiracial female officers, es- pecially in settings where the VR character was known to be a suspect. Across a full conversation of a typical VR scene, these marginal AT Es can result in notable changes in def- erence of tone (two to several points difference on a scale of 0-10), above and beyond that due to the initial effect of per- ceiving a Black male character. Even more disconcerting is that this can contribute to conversation breakdowns that po- tentially result in violence or danger to both the public and the police. We also explored the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for ATE estimation. From our methods com- parison analysis, including model validation against synthetic data, we provide unique scientific insights on LLM-assisted methodologies for ATE estimation. As such, for ATE esti- mation with multilevel data with text, we recommend mixed effects models with the inverse propensity treatment weighted (iptw) approach, which utilized an LLM for text feature cre- ation. While we also tested LLMs for finetuning prediction models ultimately for ATE estimation, we conclude they are an area for further development and refinement.

Large language models (LLMs) power educational applications from tutoring to essay scoring, but each is a point solution to a single task, and only recently have these point solutions been integrated into agents operating over a learning management system (LMS). Yet tutoring is long-horizon, since a learner improves over days and weeks rather than in a single turn, and no benchmark evaluates an agent tutor across a sustained relationship. We introduce EduClaw-Bench, a benchmark that places an agent tutor in a continuous 30-day relationship with a simulated learner grounded in knowledge tracing (KT), whose knowledge-concept mastery, from a KT model trained on real-student data, drives its answers and is probed for learning gain across 55 scenarios. Each agent is scored on three primary axes (learning gain, responsiveness, and helpfulness) and two curriculum-design axes (Gagné and Rosenshine), with helpfulness and the curriculum axes judged by a cross-family panel of three LLM judges. Evaluating 10 agent adapters over three base-model tiers yields two findings that single-tier, single-session evaluation cannot reach. First, tutoring quality belongs to the base model and the agent harness together rather than either alone. Second, almost no combination sustains good tutoring over the full horizon. A calibration check ($\text{ECE}=0.049$) and a live-classroom field study confirm that the simulated learner and its measurements track reality. Our work is a step toward trustworthy AI tutors for future education.