Research Papers

Why Do Decision Makers (Not) Use AI? A Cross-Domain Analysis of Factors Impacting AI Adoption

Rebecca Yu, Valerie Chen, Ameet Talwalkar +1

Growing excitement around deploying AI across various domains calls for a careful assessment of how human decision-makers interact with AI-powered systems. In particular, it is essential to understand when decision-makers voluntarily choose to consult AI tools, which we term decision-maker adoption. We interviewed experts across four domains -- medicine, law, journalism, and the public sector -- to explore current AI use cases and perceptions of adoption. From these interviews, we identify key factors that shape decision-maker adoption of AI tools: the decision-maker's background, perceptions of the AI, consequences for the decision-maker, and perceived implications for other stakeholders. We translate these factors into an AI adoption sheet to analyze how decision-makers approach adoption choices through comparative, cross-domain case studies, highlighting how our factors help explain inter-domain differences in adoption. Our findings offer practical guidance for supporting the responsible and context-aware deployment of AI by better accounting for the decision-maker's perspective.

The development of explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) methods for scene classification problems has attracted great attention in remote sensing (RS). Most xAI methods and the related evaluation metrics in RS are initially developed for natural images considered in computer vision (CV), and their direct usage in RS may not be suitable. To address this issue, in this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of explanation methods and metrics in the context of RS image scene classification. In detail, we methodologically and experimentally analyze ten explanation metrics spanning five categories (faithfulness, robustness, localization, complexity, randomization), applied to five established feature attribution methods (Occlusion, LIME, GradCAM, LRP, and DeepLIFT) across three RS datasets. Our methodological analysis identifies key limitations in both explanation methods and metrics. The performance of perturbation-based methods, such as Occlusion and LIME, heavily depends on perturbation baselines and spatial characteristics of RS scenes. Gradient-based approaches like GradCAM struggle when multiple labels are present in the same image, while some relevance propagation methods (LRP) can distribute relevance disproportionately relative to the spatial extent of classes. Analogously, we find limitations in evaluation metrics. Faithfulness metrics share the same problems as perturbation-based methods. Localization metrics and complexity metrics are unreliable for classes with a large spatial extent. In contrast, robustness metrics and randomization metrics consistently exhibit greater stability. Our experimental results support these methodological findings. Based on our analysis, we provide guidelines for selecting explanation methods, metrics, and hyperparameters in the context of RS image scene classification.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are integrated into more aspects of society, they offer new capabilities but also cause a range of harms that are drawing increasing scrutiny. A large body of work in the Responsible AI community has focused on identifying and auditing these harms. However, much less is understood about what happens after harm occurs: what constitutes reparation, who initiates it, and how effective these reparations are. In this paper, we develop a taxonomy of AI harm reparation based on a thematic analysis of real-world incidents. The taxonomy organizes reparative actions into four overarching goals: acknowledging harm, attributing responsibility, providing remedies, and enabling systemic change. We apply this framework to a dataset of 1,060 AI-related incidents, analyzing the prevalence of each action and the distribution of stakeholder involvement. Our findings show that reparation efforts are concentrated in early, symbolic stages, with limited actions toward accountability or structural reform. Drawing on theories of justice, we argue that existing responses fall short of delivering meaningful redress. This work contributes a foundation for advancing more accountable and reparative approaches to Responsible AI.

We introduce RedDebate, a novel multi-agent debate framework that provides the foundation for Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and mitigate their unsafe behaviours. AI safety approaches often rely on costly human evaluation or isolated single-model assessment, both constrained by scalability and prone to oversight failures. RedDebate employs collaborative argumentation among multiple LLMs across diverse debate scenarios, enabling them to critically evaluate one another's reasoning and systematically uncover unsafe failure modes through fully automated red-teaming. To support this, we propose designing distinct long-term memory modules that preserve safety-relevant insights from debate interactions and leverage them during subsequent inference, facilitating continuous refinement of model behaviour. Empirical evaluation on safety benchmarks across a diverse set of models demonstrates that RedDebate substantially reduces unsafe outputs. While debate alone allows LLMs to refine their behaviour, the addition of memory yields further error reductions. To the best of our knowledge, RedDebate is the first fully automated framework to unify multi-agent debate and red-teaming to progressively enhance LLM safety without human intervention.

Existing paradigms for ensuring AI safety, such as guardrail models and alignment training, often compromise either inference efficiency or development flexibility. We introduce Disentangled Safety Adapters (DSA), a novel framework addressing these challenges by decoupling safety-specific computations from a task-optimized base model. DSA utilizes lightweight adapters that leverage the base model's internal representations, enabling diverse and flexible safety functionalities with minimal impact on inference cost. Empirically, DSA-based safety guardrails substantially outperform comparably sized standalone models across hate speech classification, detecting unsafe model inputs and responses, and hallucination detection with relative improvements of up to 53% in AUC. Furthermore, DSA-based safety alignment allows dynamic, inference-time adjustment of alignment strength and a fine-grained trade-off between instruction following performance and model safety. Importantly, combining the DSA safety guardrail with DSA safety alignment facilitates context-dependent alignment strength, boosting safety on StrongREJECT by 93% while maintaining 98% performance on MTBench - a total reduction in alignment tax of 8 percentage points compared to standard safety alignment fine-tuning. Overall, DSA presents a promising path towards more modular, efficient, and adaptable AI safety and alignment.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems, offering powerful tools for innovation. Yet its rapid integration raises urgent ethical concerns related to data ownership, privacy, and systemic bias. Issues like opaque decision-making, misleading outputs, and unfair treatment in high-stakes domains underscore the need for transparent and accountable AI systems. This article addresses these challenges by proposing a modular ethical assessment framework built on ontological blocks of meaning-discrete, interpretable units that encode ethical principles such as fairness, accountability, and ownership. By integrating these blocks with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles, the framework supports scalable, transparent, and legally aligned ethical evaluations, including compliance with the EU AI Act. Using a real-world use case in AI-powered investor profiling, the paper demonstrates how the framework enables dynamic, behavior-informed risk classification. The findings suggest that ontological blocks offer a promising path toward explainable and auditable AI ethics, though challenges remain in automation and probabilistic reasoning.

ASyMOB: Algebraic Symbolic Mathematical Operations Benchmark

Michael Shalyt, Rotem Elimelech, Ido Kaminer

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to symbolic mathematics, yet existing evaluations often conflate pattern memorization with genuine reasoning. To address this gap, we present ASyMOB, a high-resolution dataset of 35,368 validated symbolic math problems spanning integration, limits, differential equations, series, and hypergeometrics. Unlike prior benchmarks, ASyMOB systematically perturbs each seed problem using symbolic, numeric, and equivalence-preserving transformations, enabling a fine-grained assessment of generalization. Our evaluation reveals three key findings: (1) most models' performance collapses under minor perturbations, while top systems exhibit an apparent regime shift in robustness; (2) integrated code tools stabilize performance, particularly for weaker models; and (3) we identify examples where Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) fail while LLMs succeed, as well as problems solved only via a hybrid LLM-CAS approach, highlighting a promising integration frontier. ASyMOB serves as a principled diagnostic tool for measuring and accelerating progress toward building verifiable, trustworthy AI for scientific discovery.

EPIC: Explanation of Pretrained Image Classification Networks via Prototype

Piotr Borycki, Magdalena Trędowicz, Szymon Janusz +4

Explainable AI (XAI) methods generally fall into two categories. Post-hoc approaches generate explanations for pre-trained models and are compatible with various neural network architectures. These methods often use feature importance visualizations, such as saliency maps, to indicate which input regions influenced the model's prediction. Unfortunately, they typically offer a coarse understanding of the model's decision-making process. In contrast, ante-hoc (inherently explainable) methods rely on specially designed model architectures trained from scratch. A notable subclass of these methods provides explanations through prototypes, representative patches extracted from the training data. However, prototype-based approaches have limitations: they require dedicated architectures, involve specialized training procedures, and perform well only on specific datasets. In this work, we propose EPIC (Explanation of Pretrained Image Classification), a novel approach that bridges the gap between these two paradigms. Like post-hoc methods, EPIC operates on pre-trained models without architectural modifications. Simultaneously, it delivers intuitive, prototype-based explanations inspired by ante-hoc techniques. To the best of our knowledge, EPIC is the first post-hoc method capable of fully replicating the core explanatory power of inherently interpretable models. We evaluate EPIC on benchmark datasets commonly used in prototype-based explanations, such as CUB-200-2011 and Stanford Cars, alongside large-scale datasets like ImageNet, typically employed by post-hoc methods. EPIC uses prototypes to explain model decisions, providing a flexible and easy-to-understand tool for creating clear, high-quality explanations.

Psychiatric disorders affect millions globally, yet their diagnosis faces significant challenges in clinical practice due to subjective assessments and accessibility concerns, leading to potential delays in treatment. To help address this issue, we present Heart2Mind, a human-centered contestable psychiatric disorder diagnosis system using wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) monitors. Our approach leverages cardiac biomarkers, particularly heart rate variability (HRV) and R-R intervals (RRI) time series, as objective indicators of autonomic dysfunction in psychiatric conditions. The system comprises three key components: (1) a Cardiac Monitoring Interface (CMI) for real-time data acquisition from Polar H9/H10 devices; (2) a Multi-Scale Temporal-Frequency Transformer (MSTFT) that processes RRI time series through integrated time-frequency domain analysis; (3) a Contestable Diagnosis Interface (CDI) combining Self-Adversarial Explanations (SAEs) with contestable Large Language Models (LLMs). Our MSTFT achieves 91.7% accuracy on the HRV-ACC dataset using leave-one-out cross-validation, outperforming state-of-the-art methods. SAEs successfully detect inconsistencies in model predictions by comparing attention-based and gradient-based explanations, while LLMs enable clinicians to validate correct predictions and contest erroneous ones. This work demonstrates the feasibility of combining wearable technology with Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and contestable LLMs to create a transparent, contestable system for psychiatric diagnosis that maintains clinical oversight while leveraging advanced AI capabilities. Our implementation is publicly available at: https://github.com/Analytics-Everywhere-Lab/heart2mind.

It is well recognised that ensuring fair AI systems is a complex sociotechnical challenge, which requires careful deliberation and continuous oversight across all stages of a system's lifecycle, from defining requirements to model deployment and deprovisioning. Dynamic argument-based assurance cases, which present structured arguments supported by evidence, have emerged as a systematic approach to evaluating and mitigating safety risks and hazards in AI-enabled system development and have also been extended to deal with broader normative goals such as fairness and explainability. This paper introduces a systems-engineering-driven framework, supported by software tooling, to operationalise a dynamic approach to argument-based assurance in two stages. In the first stage, during the requirements planning phase, a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder team define goals and claims to be established (and evidenced) by conducting a comprehensive fairness governance process. In the second stage, a continuous monitoring interface gathers evidence from existing artefacts (e.g. metrics from automated tests), such as model, data, and use case documentation, to support these arguments dynamically. The framework's effectiveness is demonstrated through an illustrative case study in finance, with a focus on supporting fairness-related arguments.

Safety frameworks have emerged as a best practice for managing risks from frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, it may be difficult for stakeholders to know if companies are adhering to their frameworks. This paper explores a potential solution: third-party compliance reviews. During a third-party compliance review, an independent external party assesses whether a frontier AI company is complying with its safety framework. First, we discuss the main benefits and challenges of such reviews. On the one hand, they can increase compliance with safety frameworks and provide assurance to internal and external stakeholders. On the other hand, they can create information security risks, impose additional cost burdens, and cause reputational damage, but these challenges can be partially mitigated by drawing on best practices from other industries. Next, we answer practical questions about third-party compliance reviews, namely: (1) Who could conduct the review? (2) What information sources could the reviewer consider? (3) How could compliance with the safety framework be assessed? (4) What information about the review could be disclosed externally? (5) How could the findings guide development and deployment actions? (6) When could the reviews be conducted? For each question, we evaluate a set of plausible options. Finally, we suggest "minimalist", "more ambitious", and "comprehensive" approaches for each question that a frontier AI company could adopt.

Responsible Artificial Intelligence (RAI) is a combination of ethics associated with the usage of artificial intelligence aligned with the common and standard frameworks. This survey paper extensively discusses the global and national standards, applications of RAI, current technology and ongoing projects using RAI, and possible challenges in implementing and designing RAI in the industries and projects based on AI. Currently, ethical standards and implementation of RAI are decoupled which caters each industry to follow their own standards to use AI ethically. Many global firms and government organizations are taking necessary initiatives to design a common and standard framework. Social pressure and unethical way of using AI forces the RAI design rather than implementation.