Research Papers

Wasserstein Distances Made Explainable: Insights Into Dataset Shifts and Transport Phenomena

Philip Naumann, Jacob Kauffmann, Grégoire Montavon

Wasserstein distances provide a powerful framework for comparing data distributions. They can be used to analyze processes over time or to detect inhomogeneities within data. However, simply calculating the Wasserstein distance or analyzing the corresponding transport plan (or coupling) may not be sufficient for understanding what factors contribute to a high or low Wasserstein distance. In this work, we propose a novel solution based on Explainable AI that allows us to efficiently and accurately attribute Wasserstein distances to various data components, including data subgroups, input features, or interpretable subspaces. Our method achieves high accuracy across diverse datasets and Wasserstein distance specifications, and its practical utility is demonstrated in three use cases.

See What I Mean? CUE: A Cognitive Model of Understanding Explanations

Tobias Labarta, Nhi Hoang, Katharina Weitz +3

As machine learning systems increasingly inform critical decisions, the need for human-understandable explanations grows. Current evaluations of Explainable AI (XAI) often prioritize technical fidelity over cognitive accessibility which critically affects users, in particular those with visual impairments. We propose CUE, a model for Cognitive Understanding of Explanations, linking explanation properties to cognitive sub-processes: legibility (perception), readability (comprehension), and interpretability (interpretation). In a study (N=455) testing heatmaps with varying colormaps (BWR, Cividis, Coolwarm), we found comparable task performance but lower confidence/effort for visually impaired users. Unlike expected, these gaps were not mitigated and sometimes worsened by accessibility-focused color maps like Cividis. These results challenge assumptions about perceptual optimization and support the need for adaptive XAI interfaces. They also validate CUE by demonstrating that altering explanation legibility affects understandability. We contribute: (1) a formalized cognitive model for explanation understanding, (2) an integrated definition of human-centered explanation properties, and (3) empirical evidence motivating accessible, user-tailored XAI.

In this paper, we introduce KERAIA, a novel framework and software platform for symbolic knowledge engineering designed to address the persistent challenges of representing, reasoning with, and executing knowledge in dynamic, complex, and context-sensitive environments. The central research question that motivates this work is: How can unstructured, often tacit, human expertise be effectively transformed into computationally tractable algorithms that AI systems can efficiently utilise? KERAIA seeks to bridge this gap by building on foundational concepts such as Minsky's frame-based reasoning and K-lines, while introducing significant innovations. These include Clouds of Knowledge for dynamic aggregation, Dynamic Relations (DRels) for context-sensitive inheritance, explicit Lines of Thought (LoTs) for traceable reasoning, and Cloud Elaboration for adaptive knowledge transformation. This approach moves beyond the limitations of traditional, often static, knowledge representation paradigms. KERAIA is designed with Explainable AI (XAI) as a core principle, ensuring transparency and interpretability, particularly through the use of LoTs. The paper details the framework's architecture, the KSYNTH representation language, and the General Purpose Paradigm Builder (GPPB) to integrate diverse inference methods within a unified structure. We validate KERAIA's versatility, expressiveness, and practical applicability through detailed analysis of multiple case studies spanning naval warfare simulation, industrial diagnostics in water treatment plants, and strategic decision-making in the game of RISK. Furthermore, we provide a comparative analysis against established knowledge representation paradigms (including ontologies, rule-based systems, and knowledge graphs) and discuss the implementation aspects and computational considerations of the KERAIA platform.

Parameterized Argumentation-based Reasoning Tasks for Benchmarking Generative Language Models

Cor Steging, Silja Renooij, Bart Verheij

Generative large language models as tools in the legal domain have the potential to improve the justice system. However, the reasoning behavior of current generative models is brittle and poorly understood, hence cannot be responsibly applied in the domains of law and evidence. In this paper, we introduce an approach for creating benchmarks that can be used to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of generative language models. These benchmarks are dynamically varied, scalable in their complexity, and have formally unambiguous interpretations. In this study, we illustrate the approach on the basis of witness testimony, focusing on the underlying argument attack structure. We dynamically generate both linear and non-linear argument attack graphs of varying complexity and translate these into reasoning puzzles about witness testimony expressed in natural language. We show that state-of-the-art large language models often fail in these reasoning puzzles, already at low complexity. Obvious mistakes are made by the models, and their inconsistent performance indicates that their reasoning capabilities are brittle. Furthermore, at higher complexity, even state-of-the-art models specifically presented for reasoning capabilities make mistakes. We show the viability of using a parametrized benchmark with varying complexity to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of generative language models. As such, the findings contribute to a better understanding of the limitations of the reasoning capabilities of generative models, which is essential when designing responsible AI systems in the legal domain.

Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration

Kexin Ding, Mu Zhou, Akshay Chaudhari +2

The wide exploration of large language models (LLMs) raises the awareness of alignment between healthcare stakeholder preferences and model outputs. This alignment becomes a crucial foundation to empower the healthcare workflow effectively, safely, and responsibly. Yet the varying behaviors of LLMs may not always match with healthcare stakeholders' knowledge, demands, and values. To enable a human-AI alignment, healthcare stakeholders will need to perform essential roles in guiding and enhancing the performance of LLMs. Human professionals must participate in the entire life cycle of adopting LLM in healthcare, including training data curation, model training, and inference. In this review, we discuss the approaches, tools, and applications of alignments between healthcare stakeholders and LLMs. We demonstrate that LLMs can better follow human values by properly enhancing healthcare knowledge integration, task understanding, and human guidance. We provide outlooks on enhancing the alignment between humans and LLMs to build trustworthy real-world healthcare applications.

We introduce ai.txt, a novel domain-specific language (DSL) designed to explicitly regulate interactions between AI models, agents, and web content, addressing critical limitations of the widely adopted robots.txt standard. As AI increasingly engages with online materials for tasks such as training, summarization, and content modification, existing regulatory methods lack the necessary granularity and semantic expressiveness to ensure ethical and legal compliance. ai.txt extends traditional URL-based access controls by enabling precise element-level regulations and incorporating natural language instructions interpretable by AI systems. To facilitate practical deployment, we provide an integrated development environment with code autocompletion and automatic XML generation. Furthermore, we propose two compliance mechanisms: XML-based programmatic enforcement and natural language prompt integration, and demonstrate their effectiveness through preliminary experiments and case studies. Our approach aims to aid the governance of AI-Internet interactions, promoting responsible AI use in digital ecosystems.

This study explores the application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to AI-powered digital innovations within a transnational governance framework. By integrating Latourian actor-network theory (ANT), this study examines how institutional motivations, regulatory compliance, and ethical and cultural acceptance drive organisations to develop and adopt AI innovations, enhancing their market acceptance and transnational accountability. We extend the TAM framework by incorporating regulatory, ethical, and socio-technical considerations as key social pressures shaping AI adoption. Recognizing that AI is embedded within complex actor-networks, we argue that accountability is co-constructed among organisations, regulators, and societal actors rather than being confined to individual developers or adopters. To address these challenges, we propose two key solutions: (1) internal resource reconfiguration, where organisations restructure their governance and compliance mechanisms to align with global standards; and (2) reshaping organisational boundaries through actor-network management, fostering engagement with external stakeholders, regulatory bodies, and transnational governance institutions. These approaches allow organisations to enhance AI accountability, foster ethical and regulatory alignment, and improve market acceptance on a global scale.

Understanding and analyzing video actions are essential for producing insightful and contextualized descriptions, especially for video-based applications like intelligent monitoring and autonomous systems. The proposed work introduces a novel framework for generating natural language descriptions from video datasets by combining textual and visual modalities. The suggested architecture makes use of ResNet50 to extract visual features from video frames that are taken from the Microsoft Research Video Description Corpus (MSVD), and Berkeley DeepDrive eXplanation (BDD-X) datasets. The extracted visual characteristics are converted into patch embeddings and then run through an encoder-decoder model based on Generative Pre-trained Transformer-2 (GPT-2). In order to align textual and visual representations and guarantee high-quality description production, the system uses multi-head self-attention and cross-attention techniques. The model's efficacy is demonstrated by performance evaluation using BLEU (1-4), CIDEr, METEOR, and ROUGE-L. The suggested framework outperforms traditional methods with BLEU-4 scores of 0.755 (BDD-X) and 0.778 (MSVD), CIDEr scores of 1.235 (BDD-X) and 1.315 (MSVD), METEOR scores of 0.312 (BDD-X) and 0.329 (MSVD), and ROUGE-L scores of 0.782 (BDD-X) and 0.795 (MSVD). By producing human-like, contextually relevant descriptions, strengthening interpretability, and improving real-world applications, this research advances explainable AI.

The issue of fairness in decision-making is a critical one, especially given the variety of stakeholder demands for differing and mutually incompatible versions of fairness. Adopting a strategic interaction of perspectives provides an alternative to enforcing a singular standard of fairness. We present a web-based software application, FairPlay, that enables multiple stakeholders to debias datasets collaboratively. With FairPlay, users can negotiate and arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome without a universally agreed-upon theory of fairness. In the absence of such a tool, reaching a consensus would be highly challenging due to the lack of a systematic negotiation process and the inability to modify and observe changes. We have conducted user studies that demonstrate the success of FairPlay, as users could reach a consensus within about five rounds of gameplay, illustrating the application's potential for enhancing fairness in AI systems.

Risk thresholds provide a measure of the level of risk exposure that a society or individual is willing to withstand, ultimately shaping how we determine the safety of technological systems. Against the backdrop of the Cold War, the first risk analyses, such as those devised for nuclear systems, cemented societally accepted risk thresholds against which safety-critical and defense systems are now evaluated. But today, the appropriate risk tolerances for AI systems have yet to be agreed on by global governing efforts, despite the need for democratic deliberation regarding the acceptable levels of harm to human life. Absent such AI risk thresholds, AI technologists-primarily industry labs, as well as "AI safety" focused organizations-have instead advocated for risk tolerances skewed by a purported AI arms race and speculative "existential" risks, taking over the arbitration of risk determinations with life-or-death consequences, subverting democratic processes. In this paper, we demonstrate how such approaches have allowed AI technologists to engage in "safety revisionism," substituting traditional safety methods and terminology with ill-defined alternatives that vie for the accelerated adoption of military AI uses at the cost of lowered safety and security thresholds. We explore how the current trajectory for AI risk determination and evaluation for foundation model use within national security is poised for a race to the bottom, to the detriment of the US's national security interests. Safety-critical and defense systems must comply with assurance frameworks that are aligned with established risk thresholds, and foundation models are no exception. As such, development of evaluation frameworks for AI-based military systems must preserve the safety and security of US critical and defense infrastructure, and remain in alignment with international humanitarian law.

The Web3 ecosystem, underpinned by cryptographic primitives and decentralized consensus, represents a high-stakes environment where software vulnerabilities and incentive misalignments translate directly into financial loss. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into this domain for tasks ranging from smart contract auditing to decentralized finance analytics, ensuring their reliability is paramount. However, general-purpose benchmarks fail to capture the specialized reasoning required for these adversarial and protocol-driven settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce DMind Benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation suite designed to rigorously assess LLM proficiency across the Web3 stack. DMind Benchmark encompasses nine distinct subdomains (spanning infrastructure, smart contracts, token economics, etc.) and combines objective knowledge retrieval with complex open-ended reasoning tasks that emulate real-world operational challenges. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 31 leading proprietary and open-weights models, employing a contamination-aware pipeline and verifying the statistical robustness of our scoring protocol through rigorous cross-judge consistency checks. Our analysis reveals a critical dichotomy: while models demonstrate competence in foundational infrastructure concepts, they exhibit significant vulnerabilities in high-reasoning tasks such as security auditing. Furthermore, we provide a Pareto analysis to guide cost-effective deployment and demonstrate through adversarial experiments that high performance on DMind Benchmark necessitates genuine reasoning rather than superficial memorization. Since its open-source release in April 2025, DMind Benchmark achieved the #1 trending position on Hugging Face for nearly a week and accumulated over 13k downloads by June 2026, establishing itself as a standard for advancing secure and trustworthy AI in Web3.

Explanations for artificial intelligence (AI) systems are intended to support the people who are impacted by AI systems in high-stakes decision-making environments, such as doctors, patients, teachers, students, housing applicants, and many others. To protect people and support the responsible development of AI, explanations need to be actionable--helping people take pragmatic action in response to an AI system--and contestable--enabling people to push back against an AI system and its determinations. For many high-stakes domains, such as healthcare, education, and finance, the sociotechnical environment includes significant legal implications that impact how people use AI explanations. For example, physicians who use AI decision support systems may need information on how accepting or rejecting an AI determination will protect them from lawsuits or help them advocate for their patients. In this paper, we make the case for Legally-Informed Explainable AI, responding to the need to integrate and design for legal considerations when creating AI explanations. We describe three stakeholder groups with different informational and actionability needs, and provide practical recommendations to tackle design challenges around the design of explainable AI systems that incorporate legal considerations.