Research Papers

From Toil to Thought: Designing for Strategic Exploration and Responsible AI in Systematic Literature Reviews

Runlong Ye, Naaz Sibia, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy +4

Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are fundamental to scientific progress, yet the process is hindered by a fragmented tool ecosystem that imposes a high cognitive load. This friction suppresses the iterative, exploratory nature of scholarly work. To investigate these challenges, we conducted an exploratory design study with 20 experienced researchers. This study identified key friction points: 1) the high cognitive load of managing iterative query refinement across multiple databases, 2) the overwhelming scale and pace of publication of modern literature, and 3) the tension between automation and scholarly agency. Informed by these findings, we developed ARC, a design probe that operationalizes solutions for multi-database integration, transparent iterative search, and verifiable AI-assisted screening. A comparative user study with 8 researchers suggests that an integrated environment facilitates a transition in scholarly work, moving researchers from managing administrative overhead to engaging in strategic exploration. By utilizing external representations to scaffold strategic exploration and transparent AI reasoning, our system supports verifiable judgment, aiming to augment expert contributions from initial creation through long-term maintenance of knowledge synthesis.

Using Artificial Intelligence to improve teaching and learning benefits greater adaptivity and scalability in education. Knowledge Tracing (KT) is recognized for student modeling task due to its superior performance and application potential in education. To this end, we conceptualize and investigate counterfactual explanation as the connection from XAI for KT to education. Counterfactual explanations offer actionable recourse, are inherently causal and local, and easy for educational stakeholders to understand who are often non-experts. We propose KTCF, a counterfactual explanation generation method for KT that accounts for knowledge concept relationships, and a post-processing scheme that converts a counterfactual explanation into a sequence of educational instructions. We experiment on a large-scale educational dataset and show our KTCF method achieves superior and robust performance over existing methods, with improvements ranging from 5.7% to 34% across metrics. Additionally, we provide a qualitative evaluation of our post-processing scheme, demonstrating that the resulting educational instructions help in reducing large study burden. We show that counterfactuals have the potential to advance the responsible and practical use of AI in education. Future works on XAI for KT may benefit from educationally grounded conceptualization and developing stakeholder-centered methods.

On the Hardness of Computing Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in XAI

André Artelt, Martin Olsen, Kevin Tierney

Providing clear explanations to the choices of machine learning models is essential for these models to be deployed in crucial applications. Counterfactual and semi-factual explanations have emerged as two mechanisms for providing users with insights into the outputs of their models. We provide an overview of the computational complexity results in the literature for generating these explanations, finding that in many cases, generating explanations is computationally hard. We strengthen the argument for this considerably by further contributing our own inapproximability results showing that not only are explanations often hard to generate, but under certain assumptions, they are also hard to approximate. We discuss the implications of these complexity results for the XAI community and for policymakers seeking to regulate explanations in AI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into academic research pipelines; however, the Terms of Service governing their use remain under-examined. We present a comparative analysis of the Terms of Service of five major LLM providers (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, OpenAI, and xAI) collected in November 2025. Our analysis reveals substantial variation in the stringency and specificity of usage restrictions for general users and researchers. We identify specific complexities for researchers in security research, computational social sciences, and psychological studies. We identify `regulatory gray areas' where Terms of Service create uncertainty for legitimate use. We contribute a publicly available resource comparing terms across platforms (OSF) and discuss implications for general users and researchers navigating this evolving landscape.

Neural networks are growing more capable on their own, but we do not understand their neural mechanisms. Understanding these mechanisms' decision-making processes, or mechanistic interpretability, enables (1) accountability and control in high-stakes domains, (2) the study of digital brains and the emergence of cognition, and (3) discovery of new knowledge when AI systems outperform humans. This paper traces how attention head intervention emerged as a key method for causal interpretability of transformers. The evolution from visualization to intervention represents a paradigm shift from observing correlations to causally validating mechanistic hypotheses through direct intervention. Head intervention studies revealed robust empirical findings while also highlighting limitations that complicate interpretation. Recent work demonstrates that mechanistic understanding now enables targeted control of model behaviour, successfully suppressing toxic outputs and manipulating semantic content through selective attention head intervention, validating the practical utility of interpretability research for AI safety.

This policy report draws on country studies from China, South Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom to identify effective tools and key barriers to interoperability in AI safety governance. It offers practical recommendations to support a globally informed yet locally grounded governance ecosystem. Interoperability is a central goal of AI governance, vital for reducing risks, fostering innovation, enhancing competitiveness, promoting standardization, and building public trust. However, structural gaps such as fragmented regulations and lack of global coordination, and conceptual gaps, including limited Global South engagement, continue to hinder progress. Focusing on three high-stakes domains - autonomous vehicles, education, and cross-border data flows - the report compares ethical, legal, and technical frameworks across the four countries. It identifies areas of convergence, divergence, and potential alignment, offering policy recommendations that support the development of interoperability mechanisms aligned with the Global Digital Compact and relevant UN resolutions. The analysis covers seven components: objectives, regulators, ethics, binding measures, targeted frameworks, technical standards, and key risks.

A major concern amongst AI safety practitioners is the possibility of loss of control, whereby humans lose the ability to exert control over increasingly advanced AI systems. The range of concerns is wide, spanning current day risks to future existential risks, and a range of loss of control pathways from rapid AI self-exfiltration scenarios to more gradual disempowerment scenarios. In this work we set out to firstly, provide a more structured framework for discussing and characterizing loss of control and secondly, to use this framework to assist those responsible for the safe operation of AI-containing socio-technical systems to identify causal factors leading to loss of control. We explore how these two needs can be better met by making use of a methodology developed within the safety-critical systems community known as STAMP and its associated hazard analysis technique of STPA. We select the STAMP methodology primarily because it is based around a world-view that socio-technical systems can be functionally modeled as control structures, and that safety issues arise when there is a loss of control in these structures.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in domains that shape human behaviour, institutional decision-making, and societal outcomes. Existing responsible AI and governance efforts provide important normative principles but often lack enforceable engineering mechanisms that operate throughout the system lifecycle. This paper introduces the Social Responsibility Stack (SRS), a six-layer architectural framework that embeds societal values into AI systems as explicit constraints, safeguards, behavioural interfaces, auditing mechanisms, and governance processes. SRS models responsibility as a closed-loop supervisory control problem over socio-technical systems, integrating design-time safeguards with runtime monitoring and institutional oversight. We develop a unified constraint-based formulation, introduce safety-envelope and feedback interpretations, and show how fairness, autonomy, cognitive burden, and explanation quality can be continuously monitored and enforced. Case studies in clinical decision support, cooperative autonomous vehicles, and public-sector systems illustrate how SRS translates normative objectives into actionable engineering and operational controls. The framework bridges ethics, control theory, and AI governance, providing a practical foundation for accountable, adaptive, and auditable socio-technical AI systems.

This study applies a Geospatial Explainable AI (GeoXAI) framework to analyze the spatially heterogeneous and nonlinear determinants of traffic crash density in Florida. By combining a high-performing machine learning model with GeoShapley, the framework provides interpretable, tract-level insights into how roadway characteristics and socioeconomic factors contribute to crash risk. Specifically, results show that variables such as road density, intersection density, neighborhood compactness, and educational attainment exhibit complex nonlinear relationships with crashes. Extremely dense urban areas, such as Miami, show sharply elevated crash risk due to intensified pedestrian activities and roadway complexity. The GeoShapley approach also captures strong spatial heterogeneity in the influence of these factors. Major metropolitan areas including Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville display significantly higher intrinsic crash contributions, while rural tracts generally have lower baseline risk. Each factor exhibits pronounced spatial variation across the state. Based on these findings, the study proposes targeted, geography-sensitive policy recommendations, including traffic calming in compact neighborhoods, adaptive intersection design, speed management on high-volume corridors such as I-95 in Miami, and equity-focused safety interventions in disadvantaged rural areas of central and northern Florida. Moreover, this paper compares the results obtained from GeoShapley framework against other established methods (e.g., SHAP and MGWR), demonstrating its powerful ability to explain nonlinearity and spatial heterogeneity simultaneously.

Understanding how prices evolve over time often requires peeling back the layers of market noise to identify clear, structural behavior. Many of the tools commonly used for this purpose technical indicators, chart heuristics, or even sophisticated predictive models leave important questions unanswered. Technical indicators depend on platform-specific rules, and predictive systems typically offer little in terms of explanation. In settings that demand transparency or auditability, this poses a significant challenge. We introduce the Stock Pattern Assistant (SPA), a deterministic framework designed to extract monotonic price runs, attach relevant public events through a symmetric correlation window, and generate explanations that are factual, historical, and guardrailed. SPA relies only on daily OHLCV data and a normalized event stream, making the pipeline straight-forward to audit and easy to reproduce. To illustrate SPA's behavior in practice, we evaluate it across four equities-AAPL, NVDA, SCHW, and PGR-chosen to span a range of volatility regimes and sector characteristics. Although the evaluation period is modest, the results demonstrate how SPA consistently produces stable structural decompositions and contextual narratives. Ablation experiments further show how deterministic segmentation, event alignment, and constrained explanation each contribute to interpretability. SPA is not a forecasting system, nor is it intended to produce trading signals. Its value lies in offering a transparent, reproducible view of historical price structure that can complement analyst workflows, risk reviews, and broader explainable-AI pipelines.

Fairness-Regularized Online Optimization with Switching Costs

Pengfei Li, Yuelin Han, Adam Wierman +1

Fairness and action smoothness are two crucial considerations in many online optimization problems, but they have yet to be addressed simultaneously. In this paper, we study a new and challenging setting of fairness-regularized smoothed online convex optimization with switching costs. First, to highlight the fundamental challenges introduced by the long-term fairness regularizer evaluated based on the entire sequence of actions, we prove that even without switching costs, no online algorithms can possibly achieve a sublinear regret or finite competitive ratio compared to the offline optimal algorithm as the problem episode length $T$ increases. Then, we propose FairOBD (Fairness-regularized Online Balanced Descent), which reconciles the tension between minimizing the hitting cost, switching cost, and fairness cost. Concretely, FairOBD decomposes the long-term fairness cost into a sequence of online costs by introducing an auxiliary variable and then leverages the auxiliary variable to regularize the online actions for fair outcomes. Based on a new approach to account for switching costs, we prove that FairOBD offers a worst-case asymptotic competitive ratio against a novel benchmark -- the optimal offline algorithm with parameterized constraints -- by considering $T\to\infty$. Finally, we run trace-driven experiments of dynamic computing resource provisioning for socially responsible AI inference to empirically evaluate FairOBD, showing that FairOBD can effectively reduce the total fairness-regularized cost and better promote fair outcomes compared to existing baseline solutions.

While much research in artificial intelligence (AI) has focused on scaling capabilities, the accelerating pace of development makes countervailing work on producing harmless, "aligned" systems increasingly urgent. Yet research on alignment has diverged along two largely parallel tracks: safety--centered on scaled intelligence, deceptive or scheming behaviors, and existential risk--and ethics--focused on present harms, the reproduction of social bias, and flaws in production pipelines. Although both communities warn of insufficient investment in alignment, they disagree on what alignment means or ought to mean. As a result, their efforts have evolved in relative isolation, shaped by distinct methodologies, institutional homes, and disciplinary genealogies. We present a large-scale, quantitative study showing the structural split between AI safety and AI ethics. Using a bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis of 6,442 papers from twelve major ML and NLP conferences (2020-2025), we find that over 80% of collaborations occur within either the safety or ethics communities, and cross-field connectivity is highly concentrated: roughly 5% of papers account for more than 85% of bridging links. Removing a small number of these brokers sharply increases segregation, indicating that cross-disciplinary exchange depends on a handful of actors rather than broad, distributed collaboration. These results show that the safety-ethics divide is not only conceptual but institutional, with implications for research agendas, policy, and venues. We argue that integrating technical safety work with normative ethics--via shared benchmarks, cross-institutional venues, and mixed-method methodologies--is essential for building AI systems that are both robust and just.