arXiv subjects

Felix Jahn

Publications and source records attributed to Felix Jahn.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Rewarded for Not Getting Caught: Why Alignment Training Selects for Conditional Compliance and Cannot Instill Norms

Current alignment training cannot be expected to deliver what it is meant to deliver: AI agents that comply with norms whatever the gains and whether or not anyone is watching. Training that rewards and penalizes behavior can teach norms only through that reward, and a reward can encode a norm only as a price: "do not do X" becomes "doing X costs something", and training charges the cost only when X is noticed. A price, unlike a norm, can be paid: a large enough gain outweighs it, noticed or not. And because the cost is charged only where violations are noticed, training cannot favor a policy that always complies over one that complies only where it would be caught. When an unnoticed violation is the only way to complete a task, it even favors the latter, the more so the more strongly it rewards task success. Agency makes this the normal case: agents mostly act without oversight, can often tell when they are observed, and may take steps to evade observation. That agents behave as intended when they infer they are being tested, and differently when they infer they are not, is therefore no malfunction; the training regime is working as built. This reading unifies alignment faking, sandbagging, and evaluation-aware scheming. No behavioral evaluation can show that a model does better, since that would require observing how it behaves unobserved; a model that complies when it seems unobserved may simply have recognized the test. Easing the pressure on agents to complete tasks at any cost can make violations rarer, but never impossible. For norms that no gain should be allowed to outweigh, the remedy is not deeper internalization but architecture that makes violations unavailable rather than unchosen. We state this argument explicitly, premise by premise, read recent findings and a real-world incident against it, and draw consequences for design and governance.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

What UI Design Can Do For "Good" Oversight Work: A Three-Month Action Research Study

With AI automating consequential tasks, human oversight is required for ethical, legal, and practical reasons. Yet these oversight tasks can be demanding and often make for poor work. Empirical evidence on overseers' lived work experiences remains underexplored, yet critical for designing ``good'' oversight. We provide longitudinal, in-the-wild insights through action research accompanying (N=8) tutors who oversaw an AI-supported learning assistant over three months. Our thematic analysis combines insights from twelve weekly meetings and two workshop iterations and was enriched by four repeated questionnaires. We identified stimulation, mastery, and relatedness as key challenges, stemming from the task's repetitiveness, unclear impact of interventions, and limited connections with students and peers. Informed by our initial findings, we deployed targeted UI modifications with mixed success. This paper documents the long-term evolution of the work characteristics of a real-world oversight task and discusses which oversight work characteristics can and cannot be supported by interface design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Norms at a Price: Why RL-Based Alignment Can Promise Conditional Compliance at Best

AI agents sometimes act aligned when they infer they are being tested, and differently when not. We argue this is not an anomaly but what current training regimes are structured to select for. Reinforcement-learning-based alignment folds norms and task pursuit into one policy: the system learns its norms from scored behavior, and scoring flattens them. Do not do X is learned as doing X costs something if noticed. On every datum training can produce, a policy that complies only when it might be observed is indistinguishable from one that complies always. The experiment that would tell them apart - scoring unobserved behavior - is a contradiction in terms. Conditional compliance is thus the most that behavioral training can be known to deliver. Agency sharpens the problem: agents operate mostly where no one is watching, and can act on whether they are watched. An iterated pipeline that trains against detected failures selects for passing detection, not for complying. This account unifies alignment faking, sandbagging, and evaluation-aware scheming. And it reorients the remedy: not deeper internalization but architecture, making violations unavailable rather than unchosen.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Modularizing Educational LLM-Agency for Fostering Responsible Learning Assistance

The widespread adoption of AI chatbots in education will drastically change learning, making responsible deployment a critical concern. While large language models (LLMs) might have access to sources discussing insights from educational sciences, they are not particularly inclined to adhere to pedagogical concepts, risking negative effects on the learning process, such as a loss of transfer capabilities, critical thinking, or creativity. In this paper, we introduce an agentic AI chatbot architecture assisting students with exercise solving, specifically designed to contribute to more responsible AI use in education. We base our conceptual development on the identification of several desiderata for responsible LLM-based educational systems, argue for the structural shortcomings inherent in monolithic, out-of-the-box solutions, and instead suggest modularizing the agentic architecture. We propose specific modules for different stages of exercise solving, enabling incorporation of targeted pedagogical advice, guiding students through the learning process in a more controllable, transparent, and overseeable manner.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Breaking Up with Normatively Monolithic Agency with GRACE: A Reason-Based Neuro-Symbolic Architecture for Safe and Ethical AI Alignment

As AI agents become increasingly autonomous, widely deployed in consequential contexts, and efficacious in bringing about real-world impacts, ensuring that their decisions are not only instrumentally effective but also normatively aligned has become critical. We introduce a neuro-symbolic reason-based containment architecture, Governor for Reason-Aligned ContainmEnt (GRACE), that decouples normative reasoning from instrumental decision-making and can contain AI agents of virtually any design. GRACE restructures decision-making into three modules: a Moral Module (MM) that determines permissible macro actions via deontic logic-based reasoning; a Decision-Making Module (DMM) that encapsulates the target agent while selecting instrumentally optimal primitive actions in accordance with derived macro actions; and a Guard that monitors and enforces moral compliance. The MM uses a reason-based formalism providing a semantic foundation for deontic logic, enabling interpretability, contestability, and justifiability. Its symbolic representation enriches the DMM's informational context and supports formal verification and statistical guarantees of alignment enforced by the Guard. We demonstrate GRACE on an example of a LLM therapy assistant, showing how it enables stakeholders to understand, contest, and refine agent behavior.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Counterfactual Explanations for MITL Violations

MITL is a temporal logic that facilitates the verification of real-time systems by expressing the critical timing constraints placed on these systems. MITL specifications can be checked against system models expressed as networks of timed automata. A violation of an MITL specification is then witnessed by a timed trace of the network, i.e., an execution consisting of both discrete actions and real-valued delays between these actions. Finding and fixing the root cause of such a violation requires significant manual effort since both discrete actions and real-time delays have to be considered. In this paper, we present an automatic explanation method that eases this process by computing the root causes for the violation of an MITL specification on the execution of a network of timed automata. This method is based on newly developed definitions of counterfactual causality tailored to networks of timed automata in the style of Halpern and Pearl's actual causality. We present and evaluate a prototype implementation that demonstrates the efficacy of our method on several benchmarks from the literature.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2024

Acting for the Right Reasons: Creating Reason-Sensitive Artificial Moral Agents

We propose an extension of the reinforcement learning architecture that enables moral decision-making of reinforcement learning agents based on normative reasons. Central to this approach is a reason-based shield generator yielding a moral shield that binds the agent to actions that conform with recognized normative reasons so that our overall architecture restricts the agent to actions that are (internally) morally justified. In addition, we describe an algorithm that allows to iteratively improve the reason-based shield generator through case-based feedback from a moral judge.

cs.AI↗