Research Papers

Large language models (LLMs) have made it remarkably easy to synthesize plausible source code from natural language prompts. While this accelerates software development and supports learning, it also raises new risks for academic integrity, authorship attribution, and responsible AI use. This paper investigates the problem of distinguishing human-written from machine-generated code by comparing two complementary approaches: feature-based detectors built from lightweight, interpretable stylometric and structural properties of code, and embedding-based detectors leveraging pretrained code encoders. Using a recent large-scale benchmark dataset of 600k human-written and AI-generated code samples, we find that feature-based models achieve strong performance (ROC-AUC 0.995, PR-AUC 0.995, F1 0.971), while embedding-based models with CodeBERT embeddings are also very competitive (ROC-AUC 0.994, PR-AUC 0.994, F1 0.965). Analysis shows that features tied to indentation and whitespace provide particularly discriminative cues, whereas embeddings capture deeper semantic patterns and yield slightly higher precision. These findings underscore the trade-offs between interpretability and generalization, offering practical guidance for deploying robust code-origin detection in academic and industrial contexts.

This work examines how leading generative artificial intelligence companies construct and communicate the concept of "safety" through public-facing documents. Drawing on critical discourse analysis, we analyze a corpus of corporate safety-related statements to explicate how authority, responsibility, and legitimacy are discursively established. These discursive strategies consolidate legitimacy for corporate actors, normalize safety as an experimental and anticipatory practice, and push a perceived participatory agenda toward safe technologies. We argue that uncritical uptake of these discourses risks reproducing corporate priorities and constraining alternative approaches to governance and design. The contribution of this work is twofold: first, to situate safety as a sociotechnical discourse that warrants critical examination; second, to caution human-computer interaction scholars against legitimizing corporate framings, instead foregrounding accountability, equity, and justice. By interrogating safety discourses as artifacts of power, this paper advances a critical agenda for human-computer interaction scholarship on artificial intelligence.

Brain foundation models bring the foundation model paradigm to the field of neuroscience. Like language and image foundation models, they are general-purpose AI systems pretrained on large-scale datasets that adapt readily to downstream tasks. Unlike text-and-image based models, however, they train on brain data: large-datasets of EEG, fMRI, and other neural data types historically collected within tightly governed clinical and research settings. This paper contends that training foundation models on neural data opens new normative territory. Neural data carry stronger expectations of, and claims to, protection than text or images, given their body-derived nature and historical governance within clinical and research settings. Yet the foundation model paradigm subjects them to practices of large-scale repurposing, cross-context stitching, and open-ended downstream application. Furthermore, these practices are now accessible to a much broader range of actors, including commercial developers, against a backdrop of fragmented and unclear governance. To map this territory, we first describe brain foundation models' technical foundations and training-data ecosystem. We then draw on AI ethics, neuroethics, and bioethics to organize concerns across privacy, consent, bias, benefit sharing, and governance. For each, we propose both agenda-setting questions and baseline safeguards as the field matures.

Explainable AI (XAI) has become critical as transformer-based models are deployed in high-stakes applications including healthcare, legal systems, and financial services, where opacity hinders trust and accountability. Transformers self-attention mechanisms have proven valuable for model interpretability, with attention weights successfully used to understand model focus and behavior (Xu et al., 2015); (Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). However, existing attention-based explanation methods rely on manually defined aggregation strategies and fixed attribution rules (Abnar and Zuidema, 2020a); (Chefer et al., 2021), while model-agnostic approaches (LIME, SHAP) treat the model as a black box and incur significant computational costs through input perturbation. We introduce Explanation Network (ExpNet), a lightweight neural network that learns an explicit mapping from transformer attention patterns to token-level importance scores. Unlike prior methods, ExpNet discovers optimal attention feature combinations automatically rather than relying on predetermined rules. We evaluate ExpNet in a challenging cross-task setting and benchmark it against a broad spectrum of model-agnostic methods and attention-based techniques spanning four methodological families.

An accurate assessment of L2 English pronunciation is crucial for language learning, as it provides personalized feedback and ensures a fair evaluation of individual progress. However, automated scoring remains challenging due to the complexity of sentence-level fluency, prosody, and completeness. This paper evaluates the zero-shot performance of Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct, an instruction-tuned speech-LLM, on 5,000 Speechocean762 utterances. The model generates rubric-aligned scores for accuracy, fluency, prosody, and completeness, showing strong agreement with human ratings within +-2 tolerance, especially for high-quality speech. However, it tends to overpredict low-quality speech scores and lacks precision in error detection. These findings demonstrate the strong potential of speech LLMs in scalable pronunciation assessment and suggest future improvements through enhanced prompting, calibration, and phonetic integration to advance Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training.

The Voice of Equity: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Techniques for Speech-Based Cognitive Impairment Detection Across Architectures and Demographics

Yasaman Haghbin, Sina Rashidi, Ali Zolnour +1

Speech-based detection of cognitive impairment offers a scalable, non-invasive screening, yet algorithmic bias across demographic and linguistic subgroups remains critically underexplored. We present the first comprehensive fairness analysis framework for speech-based multi-class cognitive impairment detection, systematically evaluating bias mitigation across architectures, and demographic subgroups. We developed two transformer-based architectures, SpeechCARE-AGF and Whisper-LWF-LoRA, on the multilingual NIA PREPARE Challenge dataset. Unlike prior work that typically examines single mitigation techniques, we compared pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing approaches, assessing fairness via Equality of Opportunity and Equalized Odds across gender, age, education, and language. Both models achieved strong performance (F1: SpeechCARE-AGF 70.87, Whisper-LWF-LoRA 71.46) but exhibited substantial fairness disparities. Adults >=80 showed lower sensitivity versus younger groups; Spanish speakers demonstrated reduced TPR versus English speakers. Mitigation effectiveness varied by architecture: oversampling improved SpeechCARE-AGF for older adults (80+ TPR: 46.19%=>49.97%) but minimally affected Whisper-LWF-LoRA. This study addresses a critical healthcare AI gap by demonstrating that architectural design fundamentally shapes bias patterns and mitigation effectiveness. Adaptive fusion mechanisms enable flexible responses to data interventions, while frequency reweighting offers robust improvements across architectures. Our findings establish that fairness interventions must be tailored to both model architecture and demographic characteristics, providing a systematic framework for developing equitable speech-based screening tools essential for reducing diagnostic disparities in cognitive healthcare.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized software development through AI-assisted coding tools, enabling developers with limited programming expertise to create sophisticated applications. However, this accessibility extends to malicious actors who may exploit these powerful tools to generate harmful software. Existing jailbreaking research primarily focuses on general attack scenarios against LLMs, with limited exploration of malicious code generation as a jailbreak target. To address this gap, we propose SPELL, a comprehensive testing framework specifically designed to evaluate the weakness of security alignment in malicious code generation. Our framework employs a time-division selection strategy that systematically constructs jailbreaking prompts by intelligently combining sentences from a prior knowledge dataset, balancing exploration of novel attack patterns with exploitation of successful techniques. Extensive evaluation across three advanced code models (GPT-4.1, Claude-3.5, and Qwen2.5-Coder) demonstrates SPELL's effectiveness, achieving attack success rates of 83.75%, 19.38%, and 68.12% respectively across eight malicious code categories. The generated prompts successfully produce malicious code in real-world AI development tools such as Cursor, with outputs confirmed as malicious by state-of-the-art detection systems at rates exceeding 73%. These findings reveal significant security gaps in current LLM implementations and provide valuable insights for improving AI safety alignment in code generation applications.

AI model documentation is fragmented across platforms and inconsistent in structure, preventing policymakers, auditors, and users from reliably assessing safety claims, data provenance, and version-level changes. We analyzed documentation from five frontier models (Gemini 3, Grok 4.1, Llama 4, GPT-5, and Claude 4.5) and 100 Hugging Face model cards, identifying 947 unique section names with extreme naming variation. Usage information alone appeared under 97 distinct labels. Using the EU AI Act Annex IV and the Stanford Transparency Index as baselines, we developed a weighted transparency framework with 8 sections and 23 subsections that prioritizes safety-critical disclosures (Safety Evaluation: 25%, Critical Risk: 20%) over technical specifications. We implemented an automated multi-agent pipeline that extracts documentation from public sources and scores completeness through LLM-based consensus. Evaluating 50 models across vision, multimodal, open-source, and closed-source systems cost less than $3 in total and revealed systematic gaps. Frontier labs (xAI, Microsoft, Anthropic) achieve approximately 80% compliance, while most providers fall below 60%. Safety-critical categories show the largest deficits: deception behaviors, hallucinations, and child safety evaluations account for 148, 124, and 116 aggregate points lost, respectively, across all evaluated models.

Following the AI Seoul Summit in 2024, twelve AI companies published frontier AI safety frameworks (Frameworks) outlining their approaches to managing catastrophic risks from advanced AI systems. Emerging legislation increasingly treats these Frameworks as external accountability mechanisms, incorporating them into reporting requirements. But what do the Frameworks actually commit each company to do? This study assesses 12 Frameworks, using 65 weighted criteria, across four dimensions: risk identification, risk analysis \& evaluation, risk treatment, and risk governance. Our criteria adapt established risk management principles from other high-risk industries (e.g. aviation, nuclear power) to the frontier AI context, following Campos et al. (2025). Overall scores range from 34% (Anthropic) to 8% (Cohere), with a median of 18%. Many aspects are missing or under-specified. These low scores may be natural given the nascency of AI risk management compared to industries with decades of practice. Nonetheless, current Frameworks are limited as accountability functions, with vague commitments that make it difficult to predict company decisions, assess whether planned responses are adequate, or determine whether commitments have been kept. Still, higher scores appear feasible within current constraints: a company adopting all leading practices currently adopted across their peers would score 54%, which is triple the current median.

AI tools in pathology have improved screening throughput, standardized quantification, and revealed prognostic patterns that inform treatment. However, adoption remains limited because most systems still lack the human-readable reasoning needed to audit decisions and prevent errors. We present RECAP-PATH, an interpretable framework that establishes a self-learning paradigm, shifting off-the-shelf multimodal large language models from passive pattern recognition to evidence-linked diagnostic reasoning. At its core is a two-phase learning process that autonomously derives diagnostic criteria: diversification expands pathology-style explanations, while optimization refines them for accuracy. This self-learning approach requires only small labeled sets and no white-box access or weight updates to generate cancer diagnoses. Evaluated on breast and prostate datasets, RECAP-PATH produced rationales aligned with expert assessment and delivered substantial gains in diagnostic accuracy over baselines. By uniting visual understanding with reasoning, RECAP-PATH provides clinically trustworthy AI and demonstrates a generalizable path toward evidence-linked interpretation.

Deep learning models for precipitation forecasting often function as black boxes, limiting their adoption in real-world weather prediction. To enhance transparency while maintaining accuracy, we developed an interpretable deep learning framework for short-term precipitation prediction in four major Indian cities: Bengaluru, Mumbai, Delhi, and Kolkata, spanning diverse climate zones. We implemented a hybrid Time-Distributed CNN-ConvLSTM (Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short-Term Memory) architecture, trained on multi-decadal ERA5 reanalysis data. The architecture was optimized for each city with a different number of convolutional filters: Bengaluru (32), Mumbai and Delhi (64), and Kolkata (128). The models achieved root mean square error (RMSE) values of 0.21 mm/day (Bengaluru), 0.52 mm/day (Mumbai), 0.48 mm/day (Delhi), and 1.80 mm/day (Kolkata). Through interpretability analysis using permutation importance, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), temporal occlusion, and counterfactual perturbation, we identified distinct patterns in the model's behavior. The model relied on city-specific variables, with prediction horizons ranging from one day for Bengaluru to five days for Kolkata. This study demonstrates how explainable AI (xAI) can provide accurate forecasts and transparent insights into precipitation patterns in diverse urban environments.

We present a modular, explainable LLM-agent pipeline for decision support that externalizes reasoning into auditable artifacts. The system instantiates three frameworks: Vester's Sensitivity Model (factor set, signed impact matrix, systemic roles, feedback loops); normal-form games (strategies, payoff matrix, equilibria); and sequential games (role-conditioned agents, tree construction, backward induction), with swappable modules at every step. LLM components (default: GPT-5) are paired with deterministic analyzers for equilibria and matrix-based role classification, yielding traceable intermediates rather than opaque outputs. In a real-world logistics case (100 runs), mean factor alignment with a human baseline was 55.5\% over 26 factors and 62.9\% on the transport-core subset; role agreement over matches was 57\%. An LLM judge using an eight-criterion rubric (max 100) scored runs on par with a reconstructed human baseline. Configurable LLM pipelines can thus mimic expert workflows with transparent, inspectable steps.