Research Papers

The systematic assessment of AI systems is increasingly vital as these technologies enter high-stakes domains. To address this, the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act introduces AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS): supervised environments where AI systems can be tested under the oversight of Competent Authorities (CAs), balancing innovation with compliance, particularly for startups and SMEs. Yet significant challenges remain: assessment methods are fragmented, tests lack standardisation, and feedback loops between developers and regulators are weak. This paper operationalises the AIRS lifecycle. We map the sandbox journey into 29 concrete activities, from pre-participation guidance through application, preparation, participation, exit, and post-participation monitoring, and we distinguish between a Core AIRS centred on regulatory oversight and an Extended AIRS that additionally embeds structured technical testing through an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS). From this mapping we derive 15 infrastructural and governance requirements that an AITS must satisfy, each linked to the activities it supports and, for high-risk systems, to the provider obligations set out in Articles 9-15 of the AI Act. The framework aims to address multiple stakeholders: CAs gain structured workflows for applying legal obligations; technical experts can integrate robust evaluation methods; and AI providers access a transparent pathway to compliance. We conclude by outlining the Sandbox Configurator, an open-source framework intended to instantiate AITS environments from these requirements, and by discussing how a shared technical foundation can support a scalable and innovation-friendly European infrastructure for trustworthy AI governance.

Responsible AI (RAI) tools -- checklists, templates, and governance processes -- often engage RAI champions, individuals intrinsically motivated to advocate ethical practices, but fail to reach non-champions, who frequently dismiss them as bureaucratic tasks. To explore this gap, we shadowed meetings and interviewed data scientists at an organization, finding that practitioners perceived RAI as irrelevant to their work. Building on these insights and theoretical foundations, we derived design principles for engaging non-champions, and introduced sticky stories -- narratives of unexpected ML harms designed to be concrete, severe, surprising, diverse, and relevant, unlike widely circulated media to which practitioners are desensitized. Using a compound AI system, we generated and evaluated sticky stories through human and LLM assessments at scale, confirming they embodied the intended qualities. In a study with 29 practitioners, we found that, compared to regular stories, sticky stories significantly increased time spent on harm identification, broadened the range of harms recognized, and fostered deeper reflection.

Mainstream AI ethics, with its reliance on top-down, principle-driven frameworks, fails to account for the situated realities of diverse communities affected by AI (Artificial Intelligence). Critics have argued that AI ethics frequently serves corporate interests through practices of 'ethics washing', operating more as a tool for public relations than as a means of preventing harm or advancing the common good. As a result, growing scepticism among critical scholars has cast the field as complicit in sustaining harmful systems rather than challenging or transforming them. In response, this paper adopts a Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspective to critically interrogate the field of AI ethics. It hence applies the same analytic tools STS has long directed at disciplines such as biology, medicine, and statistics to ethics. This perspective reveals a core tension between vertical (top-down, principle-based) and horizontal (risk-mitigating, implementation-oriented) approaches to ethics. By tracing how these models have shaped the discourse, we show how both fall short in addressing the complexities of AI as a socio-technical assemblage, embedded in practice and entangled with power. To move beyond these limitations, we propose a threefold reorientation of AI ethics. First, we call for a shift in foundations: from top-down abstraction to empirical grounding. Second, we advocate for pluralisation: moving beyond Western-centric frameworks toward a multiplicity of onto-epistemic perspectives. Finally, we outline strategies for reconfiguring AI ethics as a transformative force, moving from narrow paradigms of risk mitigation toward co-creating technologies of hope.

Assessing fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) typically involves AI experts who select protected features, fairness metrics, and set fairness thresholds to assess outcome fairness. However, little is known about how stakeholders, particularly those affected by AI outcomes but lacking AI expertise, assess fairness. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 26 stakeholders without AI expertise, representing potential decision subjects in a credit rating scenario, to examine how they assess fairness when placed in the role of deciding on features with priority, metrics, and thresholds. We reveal that stakeholders' fairness decisions are more complex than typical AI expert practices: they considered features far beyond legally protected features, tailored metrics for specific contexts, set diverse yet stricter fairness thresholds, and even preferred designing customized fairness. Our results extend the understanding of how stakeholders can meaningfully contribute to AI fairness governance and mitigation, underscoring the importance of incorporating stakeholders' nuanced fairness judgments.

Bone health studies are crucial in medical practice for the early detection and treatment of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis. Clinicians usually make a diagnosis based on densitometry (DEXA scans) and patient history. The applications of AI in this field are ongoing research. Most successful methods rely on deep learning models that use vision alone (DEXA/X-ray imagery) and focus on prediction accuracy, while explainability is often disregarded and left to post hoc assessments of input contributions. We propose ProtoMedX, a multi-modal (multimodal) model that uses both DEXA scans of the lumbar spine and patient records. ProtoMedX's prototype-based architecture is explainable by design, which is crucial for medical applications, especially in the context of the upcoming EU AI Act, as it allows explicit analysis of model decisions, including incorrect ones. ProtoMedX demonstrates state-of-the-art performance in bone health classification while also providing explanations that can be visually understood by clinicians. Using a dataset of 4,160 real NHS patients, the proposed ProtoMedX achieves 87.58% accuracy in vision-only tasks and 89.8% in its multi-modal variant, both surpassing existing published methods.

The Intercepted Self: How Generative AI Challenges the Dynamics of the Relational Self

Sandrine R. Schiller, Camilo Miguel Signorelli, Filippos Stamatiou

Generative AI is changing our way of interacting with technology, others, and ourselves. Systems such as Microsoft copilot, Gemini and the expected Apple intelligence still awaits our prompt for action. Yet, it is likely that AI assistant systems will only become better at predicting our behaviour and acting on our behalf. Imagine new generations of generative and predictive AI deciding what you might like best at a new restaurant, picking an outfit that increases your chances on your date with a partner also chosen by the same or a similar system. Far from a science fiction scenario, the goal of several research programs is to build systems capable of assisting us in exactly this manner. The prospect urges us to rethink human-technology relations, but it also invites us to question how such systems might change the way we relate to ourselves. Building on our conception of the relational self, we question the possible effects of generative AI with respect to what we call the sphere of externalised output, the contextual sphere and the sphere of self-relating. In this paper, we attempt to deepen the existential considerations accompanying the AI revolution by outlining how generative AI enables the fulfilment of tasks and also increasingly anticipates, i.e. intercepts, our initiatives in these different spheres.

Chemists in search of structure-property relationships face great challenges due to limited high quality, concordant datasets. Machine learning (ML) has significantly advanced predictive capabilities in chemical sciences, but these modern data-driven approaches have increased the demand for data. In response to the growing demand for explainable AI (XAI) and to bridge the gap between predictive accuracy and human comprehensibility, we introduce LAMeL - a Linear Algorithm for Meta-Learning that preserves interpretability while improving the prediction accuracy across multiple properties. While most approaches treat each chemical prediction task in isolation, LAMeL leverages a meta-learning framework to identify shared model parameters across related tasks, even if those tasks do not share data, allowing it to learn a common functional manifold that serves as a more informed starting point for new unseen tasks. Our method delivers performance improvements ranging from 1.1- to 25-fold over standard ridge regression, depending on the domain of the dataset. While the degree of performance enhancement varies across tasks, LAMeL consistently outperforms or matches traditional linear methods, making it a reliable tool for chemical property prediction where both accuracy and interpretability are critical.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming financial planning by expanding access, lowering costs, and enabling dynamic, data-driven advice. Yet without clear safeguards, digital platforms risk reproducing longstanding market inefficiencies such as information asymmetry, misaligned incentives, and systemic fragility. This paper develops a framework for responsible AI in financial planning, anchored in five principles: fiduciary duty, adaptive personalization, technical robustness, ethical and fairness constraints, and auditability. We illustrate these risks and opportunities through case studies, and extend the framework into a five-level roadmap of AI financial intermediaries. By linking technological design to economic theory, we show how AI can either amplify vulnerabilities or create more resilient, trustworthy forms of financial intermediation.

Anti-Money Laundering Machine Learning Pipelines; A Technical Analysis on Identifying High-risk Bank Clients with Supervised Learning

Khashayar Namdar, Pin-Chien Wang, Tushar Raju +3

Anti-money laundering (AML) actions and measurements are among the priorities of financial institutions, for which machine learning (ML) has shown to have a high potential. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive and systematic approach for developing ML pipelines to identify high-risk bank clients in a dataset curated for Task 1 of the University of Toronto 2023-2024 Institute for Management and Innovation (IMI) Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Competition. The dataset included 195,789 customer IDs, and we employed a 16-step design and statistical analysis to ensure the final pipeline was robust. We also framed the data in a SQLite database, developed SQL-based feature engineering algorithms, connected our pre-trained model to the database, and made it inference-ready, and provided explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) modules to derive feature importance. Our pipeline achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.961 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.005. The proposed pipeline achieved second place in the competition.

Tournaments are widely used models to represent pairwise dominance between candidates, alternatives, or teams. We study the problem of providing certified explanations for why a candidate appears among the winners under various tournament rules. To this end, we identify minimal supports, minimal sub-tournaments in which the candidate is guaranteed to win regardless of how the rest of the tournament is completed (that is, the candidate is a necessary winner of the sub-tournament). This notion corresponds to an abductive explanation for the question,"Why does the winner win the tournament?", a central concept in formal explainable AI. We focus on common tournament solutions: the top cycle, the uncovered set, the Copeland rule, the Borda rule, the maximin rule, and the weighted uncovered set. For each rule we determine the size of the smallest minimal supports, and we present polynomial-time algorithms to compute them for all solutions except for the weighted uncovered set, for which the problem is NP-complete. Finally, we show how minimal supports can serve to produce compact, certified, and intuitive explanations for tournament solutions.

The rise of misinformation underscores the need for scalable and reliable fact-checking solutions. Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in automating fact verification, yet their effectiveness across global contexts remains uncertain. We systematically evaluate nine established LLMs across multiple categories (open/closed-source, multiple sizes, diverse architectures, reasoning-based) using 5,000 claims previously assessed by 174 professional fact-checking organizations across 47 languages. Our methodology tests model generalizability on claims postdating training cutoffs and four prompting strategies mirroring both citizen and professional fact-checker interactions, with over 240,000 human annotations as ground truth. Findings reveal a concerning pattern resembling the Dunning-Kruger effect: smaller, accessible models show high confidence despite lower accuracy, while larger models demonstrate higher accuracy but lower confidence. This risks systemic bias in information verification, as resource-constrained organizations typically use smaller models. Performance gaps are most pronounced for non-English languages and claims originating from the Global South, threatening to widen existing information inequalities. These results establish a multilingual benchmark for future research and provide an evidence base for policy aimed at ensuring equitable access to trustworthy, AI-assisted fact-checking.

In our age of digital platforms, human attention has become a scarce and highly valuable resource, rivalrous, tradable, and increasingly subject to market dynamics. This article explores the commodification of attention within the framework of the attention economy, arguing that attention should be understood as a common good threatened by over-exploitation. Drawing from philosophical, economic, and legal perspectives, we first conceptualize attention not only as an individual cognitive process but as a collective and infrastructural phenomenon susceptible to enclosure by digital intermediaries. We then identify and analyze negative externalities of the attention economy, particularly those stemming from excessive screen time: diminished individual agency, adverse health outcomes, and societal and political harms, including democratic erosion and inequality. These harms are largely unpriced by market actors and constitute a significant market failure. In response, among a spectrum of public policy tools ranging from informational campaigns to outright restrictions, we propose a Pigouvian tax on attention capture as a promising regulatory instrument to internalize the externalities and, in particular, the social cost of compulsive digital engagement. Such a tax would incentivize structural changes in platform design while preserving user autonomy. By reclaiming attention as a shared resource vital to human agency, health, and democracy, this article contributes a novel economic and policy lens to the debate on digital regulation. Ultimately, this article advocates for a paradigm shift: from treating attention as a private, monetizable asset to protecting it as a collective resource vital for humanity.