Research Papers

The advancement of natural language processing (NLP) has expanded AI-based text classification in the legal domain. However, accurately classifying legal documents remains challenging due to the complexity of legal texts and subtle differences between legal categories. This study evaluates legal text classification models ranging from traditional machine learning techniques to large language models (LLMs) using ten categories of Korean sexual offense precedents. The results show that fine-tuning small-scale models such as KLUE-BERT on legal data outperforms general-purpose models such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0, as well as traditional machine learning models. KLUE-BERT achieved the highest accuracy of 99.3%, indicating that domain adaptation and fine-tuning can be more important than model size for legal document classification. We further employ explainable AI (XAI) techniques to analyze model predictions and misclassification cases. XAI analysis identifies linguistic features influencing model decisions and limitations in capturing subtle textual cues. Using KICS data, which closely resembles real-world legal case records, we further evaluate the model's generalization capabilities and find that it struggles to interpret implicit contextual cues. These findings highlight the importance of both performance and interpretability in legal AI and demonstrate how XAI can improve transparency in legal text classification. AI-assisted tools can support legal professionals in tasks including document classification, legal information retrieval, and case assessment.

While multimodal deep learning has advanced medical imaging analysis, existing black-box systems \textcolor{black}{may remain confined to isolated tasks, often overlooking} the trust-sensitive nature of clinical diagnosis as a multi-task process. We propose IMT-CXR (Interpretable Multi-task Transformer for Chest X-ray Analysis), a framework that emulates radiologists' diagnostic workflow through three evidence-driven stages: 1) Disease recognition; 2) Attribute characterization (e.g., size, location, severity quantification); 3) Evidence-integrated report generation with traceable decision pathways. The framework employs a unified transformer architecture optimized via medical-domain instruction tuning, sequentially executing four clinical tasks: multi-label disease classification, lesion localization, anatomical segmentation, and radiology report generation. Experimental validation demonstrates competitive performance on ten CXR benchmarks under direct inference and fine-tuning settings. In a blinded evaluation of 160 historical reports from four medical centers, three radiologists rated 66\% of AI-generated reports as comparable to or surpassing original clinical reports in diagnostic clarity, highlighting the framework's translational potential. By establishing traceable diagnostic pathways from anatomical findings to conclusions, this work bridges the gap between AI technical metrics and clinical utility, advancing trustworthy AI systems in medical imaging.

MLReplicate: Benchmarking Autonomous Research Systems for Machine Learning Reproducibility

Sasi Kiran Gaddipati, Diyana Muhammed, Farhana Keya +2

Autonomous research systems capable of generating complete scientific manuscripts have advanced rapidly, yet robust and realistic evaluation frameworks have failed to keep pace. To bridge this gap, we introduce MLReplicate, an end-to-end benchmark evaluating autonomous research systems on machine learning reproducibility. The benchmark was constructed from ICML 2025 outstanding papers reformulated into standardized input specifications and evaluated across 6 state-of-the-art research systems: AI SCIENTIST-V1, AI SCIENTIST-V2, AGENT LABORATORY, CYCLERESEARCHER, AI RESEARCHER, and TINY SCIENTIST, yielding 45 generated manuscripts, with 3 failed experiments. Outputs are assessed using a dual-protocol approach that combines automated conference-style review and structured expert human evaluation, while tracking computational cost, runtime, and the amount of required human intervention. The automated conference-style review accepted 10 out of 37 valid submissions. An additional 8 submissions were desk-rejected before review for failing to meet the minimum page threshold. In contrast to automated reviews, human reviewers consistently identified methodological flaws, hallucinated experimental results, and reproducibility failures across all systems, and 59% of accepted automated reviews contained fabricated or unsupported claims. We further find that neither token budget nor computational cost predicts output quality: the cheapest system outperforms the most resource-intensive system in human evaluation, despite a 38-fold difference in input tokens. We thus demonstrate that autonomous research workflow design matters more than the scale of compute. MLReplicate exposes a substantial gap between current autonomous research systems and genuine scientific rigor, and establishes a practical, extensible evaluation framework for systematic progress toward trustworthy AI-driven scientific discovery.

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education has raised important questions regarding students' transparency in reporting AI-assisted work. This study investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying university students' willingness to disclose AI use by applying the Cognition--Affect--Conation (CAC) framework. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, survey data were collected from 546 university students and analysed using structural equation modelling to examine the relationships among cognitive perceptions, affective responses, and disclosure intention. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with 22 students were conducted to further interpret the quantitative findings. The results indicate that psychological safety significantly increases students' willingness to disclose AI use and is positively shaped by perceived fairness, perceived teacher support, and perceived organisational support. Conversely, evaluation apprehension reduces disclosure intention and psychological safety, and is strengthened by perceived stigma, perceived uncertainty, and privacy concern. Qualitative findings further reveal that institutional clarity and supportive instructional practices encourage openness, whereas policy ambiguity and fear of negative evaluation often lead students to adopt cautious or strategic disclosure practices. Overall, the study highlights the dual role of enabling and inhibitory psychological mechanisms in shaping AI-use disclosure and underscores the importance of supportive institutional environments and clear guidance for promoting responsible AI transparency in higher education.

Beyond Explainable AI (XAI): An Overdue Paradigm Shift and Post-XAI Research Directions

Saleh Afroogh, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Petra Ahrweiler +46

This study provides a cross-disciplinary examination of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches-focusing on deep neural networks (DNNs) and large language models (LLMs)-and identifies empirical and conceptual limitations in current XAI. We discuss critical symptoms that stem from deeper root causes (i.e., two paradoxes, two conceptual confusions, and five false assumptions). These fundamental problems within the current XAI research field reveal three insights: experimentally, XAI exhibits significant flaws; conceptually, it is paradoxical; and pragmatically, further attempts to reform the paradoxical XAI might exacerbate its confusion-demanding fundamental shifts and new research directions. To move beyond XAI's limitations, we propose a four-pronged synthesized paradigm shift toward reliable and certified AI development. These four components include: verification-focused Interactive AI (IAI) to establish scientific community protocols for certifying AI system performance rather than attempting post-hoc explanations, AI Epistemology for rigorous scientific foundations, User-Sensible AI to create context-aware systems tailored to specific user communities, and Model-Centered Interpretability for faithful technical analysis-together offering comprehensive post-XAI research directions.

AI safety benchmarks are pivotal for safety in advanced AI systems; however, they have significant technical, epistemic, and sociotechnical shortcomings. We present a review of 210 safety benchmarks that maps out common challenges in safety benchmarking, documenting failures and limitations by drawing from engineering sciences and long-established theories of risk and safety. We argue that adhering to established risk management principles, mapping the space of what can(not) be measured, developing robust probabilistic metrics, and efficiently deploying measurement theory to connect benchmarking objectives with the world can significantly improve the validity and usefulness of AI safety benchmarks. The review provides a roadmap on how to improve AI safety benchmarking, and we illustrate the effectiveness of these recommendations through quantitative and qualitative evaluation. We also provide workflow-oriented guiding questions with illustrative benchmark that help researchers and practitioners develop robust and epistemologically sound safety benchmarks. This study advances the science of benchmarking and helps practitioners deploy AI systems more responsibly.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques, such as Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), have become indispensable for visualizing the reasoning process of deep neural networks in medical image analysis. Despite their popularity, the faithfulness and reliability of these heatmap-based explanations remain under scrutiny. This study critically investigates whether Grad-CAM truly represents the internal decision-making of deep models trained for lung cancer image classification. Using the publicly available IQ-OTH/NCCD dataset, we evaluate five representative architectures: ResNet-50, ResNet-101, DenseNet-161, EfficientNet-B0, and ViT-Base-Patch16-224, to explore model-dependent variations in Grad-CAM interpretability. We introduce a quantitative evaluation framework that combines localization accuracy, perturbation-based faithfulness, and explanation consistency to assess Grad-CAM reliability across architectures. Experimental findings reveal that while Grad-CAM effectively highlights salient tumor regions in most convolutional networks, its interpretive fidelity significantly degrades for Vision Transformer models due to non-local attention behavior. Furthermore, cross-model comparisons indicate substantial variability in saliency localization, implying that Grad-CAM explanations may not always correspond to the true diagnostic evidence used by the networks. This work exposes critical limitations of current saliency-based XAI approaches in medical imaging and emphasizes the need for model-aware interpretability methods that are both computationally sound and clinically meaningful. Our findings aim to inspire a more cautious and rigorous adoption of visual explanation tools in medical AI, urging the community to rethink what it truly means to "trust" a model's explanation.

Big Data has become central to modern applications in finance, insurance, and cybersecurity, enabling machine learning systems to perform large-scale risk assessments and fraud detection. However, the increasing dependence on automated analytics introduces important concerns about transparency, regulatory compliance, and trust. This paper examines how explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) can be integrated into Big Data analytics pipelines for fraud detection and risk management. We review key Big Data characteristics and survey major analytical tools, including distributed storage systems, streaming platforms, and advanced fraud detection models such as anomaly detectors, graph-based approaches, and ensemble classifiers. We also present a structured review of widely used XAI methods, including LIME, SHAP, counterfactual explanations, and attention mechanisms, and analyze their strengths and limitations when deployed at scale. Based on these findings, we identify key research gaps related to scalability, real-time processing, and explainability for graph and temporal models. To address these challenges, we outline a conceptual framework that integrates scalable Big Data infrastructure with context-aware explanation mechanisms and human feedback. The paper concludes with open research directions in scalable XAI, privacy-aware explanations, and standardized evaluation methods for explainable fraud detection systems.

Reliability and Admissibility of AI-Generated Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials

Sahibpreet Singh, Lalita Devi

This paper examines the admissibility of AI-generated forensic evidence in criminal trials. The growing adoption of AI presents promising results for investigative efficiency. Despite advancements, significant research gaps persist in practically understanding the legal limits of AI evidence in judicial processes. Existing literature lacks focused assessment of the evidentiary value of AI outputs. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether AI-generated evidence satisfies established legal standards of reliability. The methodology involves a comparative doctrinal legal analysis of evidentiary standards across common law jurisdictions. Preliminary results indicate that AI forensic tools can enhance scale of evidence analysis. However, challenges arise from reproducibility deficits. Courts exhibit variability in acceptance of AI evidence due to limited technical literacy and lack of standardized validation protocols. Liability implications reveal that developers and investigators may bear accountability for flawed outputs. This raises critical concerns related to wrongful conviction. The paper emphasizes the necessity of independent validation and, development of AI-specific admissibility criteria. Findings inform policy development for the responsible AI integration within criminal justice systems. The research advances the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 16 by reinforcing equitable access to justice. Preliminary results contribute for a foundation for future empirical research in AI deployed criminal forensics.

Taming Silent Failures: A Framework for Verifiable AI Reliability

Guan-Yan Yang, Farn Wang

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into safety-critical systems introduces a new reliability paradigm: silent failures, where AI produces confident but incorrect outputs that can be dangerous. This paper introduces the Formal Assurance and Monitoring Environment (FAME), a novel framework that confronts this challenge. FAME synergizes the mathematical rigor of offline formal synthesis with the vigilance of online runtime monitoring to create a verifiable safety net around opaque AI components. We demonstrate its efficacy in an autonomous vehicle perception system, where FAME successfully detected 93.5% of critical safety violations that were otherwise silent. By contextualizing our framework within the ISO 26262 and ISO/PAS 8800 standards, we provide reliability engineers with a practical, certifiable pathway for deploying trustworthy AI. FAME represents a crucial shift from accepting probabilistic performance to enforcing provable safety in next-generation systems.

AI-assisted gait analysis holds promise for improving Parkinson's Disease (PD) care, but current clinical dashboards lack transparency and offer no meaningful way for clinicians to interrogate or contest AI decisions. To address this issue, we present Motion2Meaning, a clinician-centered framework that advances Contestable AI through a tightly integrated interface designed for interpretability, oversight, and procedural recourse. Our approach leverages vertical Ground Reaction Force (vGRF) time-series data from wearable sensors as an objective biomarker of PD motor states. The system comprises three key components: a Gait Data Visualization Interface (GDVI), a one-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network (1D-CNN) that predicts Hoehn & Yahr severity stages, and a Contestable Interpretation Interface (CII) that combines our novel Cross-Modal Explanation Discrepancy (XMED) safeguard with a contestable Large Language Model (LLM). Our 1D-CNN achieves 89.0% F1-score on the public PhysioNet gait dataset. XMED successfully identifies model unreliability by detecting a five-fold increase in explanation discrepancies in incorrect predictions (7.45%) compared to correct ones (1.56%), while our LLM-powered interface enables clinicians to validate correct predictions and successfully contest a portion of the model's errors. A human-centered evaluation of this contestable interface reveals a crucial trade-off between the LLM's factual grounding and its readability and responsiveness to clinical feedback. This work demonstrates the feasibility of combining wearable sensor analysis with Explainable AI (XAI) and contestable LLMs to create a transparent, auditable system for PD gait interpretation that maintains clinical oversight while leveraging advanced AI capabilities. Our implementation is publicly available at: https://github.com/hungdothanh/motion2meaning.

We introduce VERA-MH (Validation of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health), an automated evaluation of the safety of AI chatbots used in mental health contexts, with an initial focus on suicide risk. Practicing clinicians and academic experts developed a rubric informed by best practices for suicide risk management for the evaluation. To fully automate the process, we used two ancillary AI agents. A user-agent model simulates users engaging in a mental health-based conversation with the chatbot under evaluation. The user-agent role-plays specific personas with pre-defined risk levels and other features. Simulated conversations are then passed to a judge-agent who scores them based on the rubric. The final evaluation of the chatbot being tested is obtained by aggregating the scoring of each conversation. VERA-MH is actively under development and undergoing rigorous validation by mental health clinicians to ensure user-agents realistically act as patients and that the judge-agent accurately scores the AI chatbot. To date we have conducted preliminary evaluation of GPT-5, Claude Opus and Claude Sonnet using initial versions of the VERA-MH rubric and used the findings for further design development. Next steps will include more robust clinical validation and iteration, as well as refining actionable scoring. We are seeking feedback from the community on both the technical and clinical aspects of our evaluation.