Research Papers

This paper explores the development of an ethical guardrail framework for AI systems, emphasizing the importance of customizable guardrails that align with diverse user values and underlying ethics. We address the challenges of AI ethics by proposing a structure that integrates rules, policies, and AI assistants to ensure responsible AI behavior, while comparing the proposed framework to the existing state-of-the-art guardrails. By focusing on practical mechanisms for implementing ethical standards, we aim to enhance transparency, user autonomy, and continuous improvement in AI systems. Our approach accommodates ethical pluralism, offering a flexible and adaptable solution for the evolving landscape of AI governance. The paper concludes with strategies for resolving conflicts between ethical directives, underscoring the present and future need for robust, nuanced and context-aware AI systems.

Where Assessment Validation and Responsible AI Meet

Jill Burstein, Geoffrey T. LaFlair

Validity, reliability, and fairness are core ethical principles embedded in classical argument-based assessment validation theory. These principles are also central to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014) which recommended best practices for early applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in high-stakes assessments for automated scoring of written and spoken responses. Responsible AI (RAI) principles and practices set forth by the AI ethics community are critical to ensure the ethical use of AI across various industry domains. Advances in generative AI have led to new policies as well as guidance about the implementation of RAI principles for assessments using AI. Building on Chapelle's foundational validity argument work to address the application of assessment validation theory for technology-based assessment, we propose a unified assessment framework that considers classical test validation theory and assessment-specific and domain-agnostic RAI principles and practice. The framework addresses responsible AI use for assessment that supports validity arguments, alignment with AI ethics to maintain human values and oversight, and broader social responsibility associated with AI use.

XForecast: Evaluating Natural Language Explanations for Time Series Forecasting

Taha Aksu, Chenghao Liu, Amrita Saha +3

Time series forecasting aids decision-making, especially for stakeholders who rely on accurate predictions, making it very important to understand and explain these models to ensure informed decisions. Traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods, which underline feature or temporal importance, often require expert knowledge. In contrast, natural language explanations (NLEs) are more accessible to laypeople. However, evaluating forecast NLEs is difficult due to the complex causal relationships in time series data. To address this, we introduce two new performance metrics based on simulatability, assessing how well a human surrogate can predict model forecasts using the explanations. Experiments show these metrics differentiate good from poor explanations and align with human judgments. Utilizing these metrics, we further evaluate the ability of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) to generate explanations for time series data, finding that numerical reasoning, rather than model size, is the main factor influencing explanation quality.

This study employs explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to analyze the behavior of asphalt concrete with varying aggregate gradations, focusing on resilience modulus (MR) and dynamic stability (DS) as measured by wheel track tests. The research utilizes a deep learning model with a multi-layer perceptron architecture to predict MR and DS based on aggregate gradation parameters derived from Bailey's Method, including coarse aggregate ratio (CA), fine aggregate coarse ratio (FAc), and other mix design variables. The model's performance was validated using k-fold cross-validation, demonstrating superior accuracy compared to alternative machine learning approaches. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values were applied to interpret the model's predictions, providing insights into the relative importance and impact of different gradation characteristics on asphalt concrete performance. Key findings include the identification of critical aggregate size thresholds, particularly the 0.6 mm sieve size, which significantly influences both MR and DS. The study revealed size-dependent performance of aggregates, with coarse aggregates primarily affecting rutting resistance and medium-fine aggregates influencing stiffness. The research also highlighted the importance of aggregate lithology in determining rutting resistance. To facilitate practical application, web-based interfaces were developed for predicting MR and DS, incorporating explainable features to enhance transparency and interpretation of results. This research contributes a data-driven approach to understanding the complex relationships between aggregate gradation and asphalt concrete performance, potentially informing more efficient and performance-oriented mix design processes in the future.

Assessing Privacy Policies with AI: Ethical, Legal, and Technical Challenges

Irem Aydin, Hermann Diebel-Fischer, Vincent Freiberger +5

The growing use of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) like OpenAI's GPT series, leads to disruptive changes across organizations. At the same time, there is a growing concern about how organizations handle personal data. Thus, privacy policies are essential for transparency in data processing practices, enabling users to assess privacy risks. However, these policies are often long and complex. This might lead to user confusion and consent fatigue, where users accept data practices against their interests, and abusive or unfair practices might go unnoticed. LLMss can be used to assess privacy policies for users automatically. In this interdisciplinary work, we explore the challenges of this approach in three pillars, namely technical feasibility, ethical implications, and legal compatibility of using LLMs to assess privacy policies. Our findings aim to identify potential for future research, and to foster a discussion on the use of LLM technologies for enabling users to fulfil their important role as decision-makers in a constantly developing AI-driven digital economy.

Proposals of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions based on increasingly complex and accurate predictive models are becoming ubiquitous across many disciplines. As the complexity of these models grows, transparency and users' understanding often diminish. This suggests that accurate prediction alone is insufficient for making an AI-based solution truly useful. In the development of healthcare systems, this introduces new issues related to accountability and safety. Understanding how and why an AI system makes a recommendation may require complex explanations of its inner workings and reasoning processes. Although research on explainable AI (XAI) has significantly increased in recent years and there is high demand for XAI in medicine, defining what constitutes a good explanation remains ad hoc, and providing adequate explanations continues to be challenging. To fully realize the potential of AI, it is critical to address two fundamental questions about explanations for safety-critical AI applications, such as health-AI: (1) What is an explanation in health-AI? and (2) What are the attributes of a good explanation in health-AI? In this study, we examined published literature and gathered expert opinions through a two-round Delphi study. The research outputs include (1) a definition of what constitutes an explanation in health-AI and (2) a comprehensive list of attributes that characterize a good explanation in health-AI.

Ensuring fairness in transaction fraud detection models is vital due to the potential harms and legal implications of biased decision-making. Despite extensive research on algorithmic fairness, there is a notable gap in the study of bias in fraud detection models, mainly due to the field's unique challenges. These challenges include the need for fairness metrics that account for fraud data's imbalanced nature and the tradeoff between fraud protection and service quality. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive fairness evaluation of transaction fraud models using public synthetic datasets, marking the first algorithmic bias audit in this domain. Our findings reveal three critical insights: (1) Certain fairness metrics expose significant bias only after normalization, highlighting the impact of class imbalance. (2) Bias is significant in both service quality-related parity metrics and fraud protection-related parity metrics. (3) The fairness through unawareness approach, which involved removing sensitive attributes such as gender, does not improve bias mitigation within these datasets, likely due to the presence of correlated proxies. We also discuss socio-technical fairness-related challenges in transaction fraud models. These insights underscore the need for a nuanced approach to fairness in fraud detection, balancing protection and service quality, and moving beyond simple bias mitigation strategies. Future work must focus on refining fairness metrics and developing methods tailored to the unique complexities of the transaction fraud domain.

Human understandable explanation of deep learning models is essential for various critical and sensitive applications. Unlike image or tabular data where the importance of each input feature (for the classifier's decision) can be directly projected into the input, time series distinguishable features (e.g. dominant frequency) are often hard to manifest in time domain for a user to easily understand. Additionally, most explanation methods require a baseline value as an indication of the absence of any feature. However, the notion of lack of feature, which is often defined as black pixels for vision tasks or zero/mean values for tabular data, is not well-defined in time series. Despite the adoption of explainable AI methods (XAI) from tabular and vision domain into time series domain, these differences limit the application of these XAI methods in practice. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method that allows a model originally trained on the time domain to be interpreted in other explanation spaces using existing methods. We suggest five explanation spaces, each of which can potentially alleviate these issues in certain types of time series. Our method can be easily integrated into existing platforms without any changes to trained models or XAI methods. The code will be released upon acceptance.

The astonishing successes of ML have raised growing concern for the fairness of modern methods when deployed in real world settings. However, studies on fairness have mostly focused on supervised ML, while unsupervised outlier detection (OD), with numerous applications in finance, security, etc., have attracted little attention. While a few studies proposed fairness-enhanced OD algorithms, they remain agnostic to the underlying driving mechanisms or sources of unfairness. Even within the supervised ML literature, there exists debate on whether unfairness stems solely from algorithmic biases (i.e. design choices) or from the biases encoded in the data on which they are trained. To close this gap, this work aims to shed light on the possible sources of unfairness in OD by auditing detection models under different data-centric factors. By injecting various known biases into the input data -- as pertain to sample size disparity, under-representation, feature measurement noise, and group membership obfuscation -- we find that the OD algorithms under the study all exhibit fairness pitfalls, although differing in which types of data bias they are more susceptible to. Most notable of our study is to demonstrate that OD algorithm bias is not merely a data bias problem. A key realization is that the data properties that emerge from bias injection could as well be organic -- as pertain to natural group differences w.r.t. sparsity, base rate, variance, and multi-modality. Either natural or biased, such data properties can give rise to unfairness as they interact with certain algorithmic design choices.

The explainability of black-box machine learning algorithms, commonly known as Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), has become crucial for financial and other regulated industrial applications due to regulatory requirements and the need for transparency in business practices. Among the various paradigms of XAI, Explainable Case-Based Reasoning (XCBR) stands out as a pragmatic approach that elucidates the output of a model by referencing actual examples from the data used to train or test the model. Despite its potential, XCBR has been relatively underexplored for many algorithms such as tree-based models until recently. We start by observing that most XCBR methods are defined based on the distance metric learned by the algorithm. By utilizing a recently proposed technique to extract the distance metric learned by Random Forests (RFs), which is both geometry- and accuracy-preserving, we investigate various XCBR methods. These methods amount to identify special points from the training datasets, such as prototypes, critics, counter-factuals, and semi-factuals, to explain the predictions for a given query of the RF. We evaluate these special points using various evaluation metrics to assess their explanatory power and effectiveness.

As AI models become ever more complex and intertwined in humans' daily lives, greater levels of interactivity of explainable AI (XAI) methods are needed. In this paper, we propose the use of belief change theory as a formal foundation for operators that model the incorporation of new information, i.e. user feedback in interactive XAI, to logical representations of data-driven classifiers. We argue that this type of formalisation provides a framework and a methodology to develop interactive explanations in a principled manner, providing warranted behaviour and favouring transparency and accountability of such interactions. Concretely, we first define a novel, logic-based formalism to represent explanatory information shared between humans and machines. We then consider real world scenarios for interactive XAI, with different prioritisations of new and existing knowledge, where our formalism may be instantiated. Finally, we analyse a core set of belief change postulates, discussing their suitability for our real world settings and pointing to particular challenges that may require the relaxation or reinterpretation of some of the theoretical assumptions underlying existing operators.

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has underscored the urgent need for responsible AI practices. Despite increasing interest, a comprehensive AI risk assessment toolkit remains lacking. This study introduces our Responsible AI (RAI) Question Bank, a comprehensive framework and tool designed to support diverse AI initiatives. By integrating AI ethics principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability into a structured question format, the RAI Question Bank aids in identifying potential risks, aligning with emerging regulations like the EU AI Act, and enhancing overall AI governance. A key benefit of the RAI Question Bank is its systematic approach to linking lower-level risk questions to higher-level ones and related themes, preventing siloed assessments and ensuring a cohesive evaluation process. Case studies illustrate the practical application of the RAI Question Bank in assessing AI projects, from evaluating risk factors to informing decision-making processes. The study also demonstrates how the RAI Question Bank can be used to ensure compliance with standards, mitigate risks, and promote the development of trustworthy AI systems. This work advances RAI by providing organizations with a valuable tool to navigate the complexities of ethical AI development and deployment while ensuring comprehensive risk management.