探索全球前沿学术脉络

Engagement Intensity as a Learner-Modeling Signal for Adaptive AI Ethics Instruction

arXiv:2606.18548v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Adaptive AI ethics instruction in graduate research training benefits from intake measures that reflect differences in prior LLM experience. Prior coursework or workshop attendance is an obvious candidate, but it is not clear whether it is associated with pre-instruction ratings on key AI perception items. We compare three candidate intake features, self-reported usage frequency, self-rated LLM familiarity, and prior AI education, across five baseline perception outcomes in 93 bioscience graduate and postdoctoral trainees enrolled in a required research ethics course. Usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five outcomes, self-rated familiarity with three, and prior AI education with none. A threshold-like pattern at the lower end of the scale is most visible for training interest and accuracy trust rather than appearing as a uniform gradient across all five outcomes. In a short intake survey, reported LLM use is more consistently associated with these perceptions than prior coursework or workshops, with self-rated familiarity serving as a secondary indicator. These results suggest that simple pre-instruction behavioral signals can inform lightweight intake profiling for adaptive AI ethics education.

Silent Failures in Federated Personalization of Foundation Models

arXiv:2606.00947v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Foundation models are increasingly personalized on decentralized private data through federated learning and are now deployed at scale under growing regulatory requirements for post-market monitoring. We argue that this convergence creates a distinct and under-recognized class of trustworthiness failures, which we term "Silent Failures." These include amplified bias, fairness collapse, and alignment erosion that may remain difficult to detect because federated learning's privacy constraints limit visibility into model behavior. A landscape analysis of existing benchmarks reveals a structural divide. Federated benchmarks evaluate system performance but provide limited insight into model behavior, whereas centralized trustworthiness benchmarks assess behavior but require model access incompatible with federated privacy. We introduce a taxonomy of six silent failure modes arising from the interaction of foundation model personalization, dataset shift, and core federated constraints. Our analysis shows that privacy-preserving training alone is insufficient for trustworthy deployment. We conclude with a research agenda for privacy-preserving behavioral evaluation and propose that silent failures become a standard diagnostic category for trustworthy federated artificial intelligence.