Research Papers

The widespread adoption of machine learning in critical applications demands techniques to mitigate high-consequence errors. Our method utilizes a dual-classifier GBDT pipeline to distinguish routine human-like errors from high-risk non-human misclassifications. Evaluated across three domains, animal breed classification, skin lesion diagnosis (ISIC 2018), and prostate histopathology (SICAPv2), our framework demonstrates robust safety improvements. To address real-world deployment concerns, our results confirm the pipeline introduces negligible inference latency (1.60% overhead for the animal dataset, 1.84% for ISIC, and 1.70% for SICAPv2) while outperforming traditional Maximum Class Probability (MCP) baselines in correction precision. Our conservative correction strategy successfully reduced dangerous non-human errors by 34.1% in ISIC and 12.57% in SICAPv2, improving super-class diagnostic safety to 90.41% and 92.13% respectively. This proves that safety-critical reliability can be substantially enhanced post-hoc without expensive model retraining. keywords: Error Analysis, Post-hoc Correction, Trustworthy AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now embedded in educational, civic, and economic systems worldwide. For African primary and secondary education, this creates a double imperative: to prepare a young population (over sixty per cent of Africans are under twenty-five) for AI-mediated labour markets without uncritically importing curricula designed for other linguistic, cultural, and socio-political contexts. The African Union's Continental AI Strategy (2024) and the 2025 Africa Declaration on AI have elevated these questions to the continental agenda. This paper proposes a Pan-African, culturally contextualised, and ethically grounded framework for integrating AI education into African primary and secondary schools. The paper is a structured conceptual synthesis of continental and national policy documents, peer-reviewed scholarship on AI ethics, AI literacy, decolonial pedagogy, and Ubuntu-grounded AI governance. We contribute: (i) a framework of six guiding principles, four curriculum domains, five ethical competencies, and an age-banded progression from lower primary to upper secondary; (ii) a comparative analysis of continental and national policy contexts; (iii) an explicit mapping between global AI-ethics principles and Ubuntu-informed relational ethics; (iv) a planned empirical validation programme combining a Delphi study, teacher surveys across anglophone, francophone, lusophone, and arabophone contexts, and multi-country classroom piloting; and (v) targeted recommendations for policymakers, educators, civil society, and international partners. We argue that an ethical AI curriculum can serve as a transformative tool for equity, innovation, and social justice, and outline a research agenda to embed ethics, resilience, and critical thinking at the core of Africa's digital future.

Responsible AI research typically focuses on examining the use and impacts of deployed AI systems. Yet, there is currently limited visibility into the pre-deployment decisions to pursue building such systems in the first place. Decisions taken in the earlier stages of development shape which systems are ultimately released, and therefore represent potential, but underexplored, points for intervention. As such, this paper investigates factors influencing AI non-development and abandonment throughout the development lifecycle. Specifically, we first perform a scoping review of academic literature, civil society resources, and grey literature including journalism and industry reports. Through thematic analysis of these sources, we develop a taxonomy of six categories of factors contributing to AI abandonment: ethical concerns, stakeholder feedback, development lifecycle challenges, organizational dynamics, resource constraints, and legal/regulatory concerns. Then, we collect data on real-world case of AI system abandonment via an AI incident database and a practitioner survey to evidence and compare factors that drive abandonment both prior to and following system deployment. While academic responsible AI communities often emphasize ethical risks as reasons to not develop AI, our empirical analysis of these cases demonstrates the diverse, and often non-ethics-related, levers that motivate organizations to abandon AI development. Synthesizing evidence from our taxonomy and related case study analyses, we identify gaps and opportunities in current responsible AI research to (1) engage with the diverse range of levers that influence organizations to abandon AI development, and (2) better support appropriate (dis)engagement with AI system development.

Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) with generative large language models (LLMs) has recently demonstrated strong performance without task-specific fine-tuning, while also enabling the generation of synthetic feedback for educational assessment. Despite these advances, LLM-based grading remains imperfect, making reliable confidence estimates essential for safe and effective human-AI collaboration in educational decision-making. In this work, we investigate confidence estimation for ASAG with LLMs by jointly considering model-based confidence signals and dataset-derived uncertainty. We systematically compare three model-based confidence estimation strategies, namely verbalizing, latent, and consistency-based confidence estimation, and show that model-based confidence alone is insufficient to reliably capture uncertainty in ASAG. To address this limitation, we propose a hybrid confidence framework that integrates model-based confidence signals with an explicit estimate of dataset-derived aleatoric uncertainty. Aleatoric uncertainty is operationalized by clustering semantically embedded student responses and quantifying within-cluster heterogeneity. Our results demonstrate that the proposed hybrid confidence measure yields more reliable confidence estimates and improves selective grading performance compared to single-source approaches. Overall, this work advances confidence-aware LLM-based grading for human-in-the-loop assessment, supporting more trustworthy AI-assisted educational assessment systems.

We provide a causal analysis of Binary Spiking Neural Networks (BSNNs) to explain their behavior. We formally define a BSNN and represent its spiking activity as a binary causal model. Thanks to this causal representation, we are able to explain the output of the network by leveraging logic-based methods. In particular, we show that we can successfully use a SAT as well as a SMT solver to compute abductive explanations from this binary causal model. To illustrate our approach, we trained the BSNN on the standard MNIST dataset and applied our SAT-based and SMT-based methods to finding abductive explanations of the network's classifications based on pixel-level features. We also compared the found explanations against SHAP, a popular method used in the area of explainable AI. We show that, unlike SHAP, our approach guarantees that a found explanation does not contain completely irrelevant features.

The rapid integration of generative AI into academic workflows demands curricula that equip students not only with tool proficiency but with the critical judgment to use those tools responsibly in scholarly work. Existing offerings cluster around two inadequate poles: technical AI development courses serving narrow specialist audiences, and brief general-literacy interventions that cannot develop the sustained, practice-based competencies rigorous research requires. This paper reports the design, theoretical rationale, and implementation of BSTA 495/395: Getting Started with AI-Assisted Research, developed and delivered at Lehigh University (Spring 2026). The course addresses an underserved gap: the competencies required for rigorous AI-assisted literature review. Its architecture organizes instruction into four sequential modules aligned with the cognitive demands of that task: comprehension of individual papers, construction and validation of knowledge taxonomies, identification of research gaps, and synthesis and production of complete literature reviews. Each module embeds an explicit verification discipline and standardized AI attribution practice. Prerequisite-free and discipline-agnostic, the course enrolls upper-level undergraduates and graduate students across all fields with differentiated assessment expectations. Pre- and post-course survey data from the inaugural offering indicate substantial self-reported confidence gains, with the largest in hallucination detection (d = +1.45), responsible AI use (d = +1.33), and AI attribution practice (d = +2.40), consistent with the course's design emphasis. The course constitutes a replicable model for the emerging genre of AI research literacy curricula.

Detecting sandbagging--the deliberate underperformance on capability evaluations--is an open problem in AI safety. We tested whether symptom validity testing (SVT) logic from clinical malingering detection could identify sandbagging through below-chance performance (BCB) on forced-choice items. In a pre-registered pilot at the 7-9 billion parameter instruction-tuned scale (3 models, 4 MMLU-Pro domains, 4 conditions, 500 items per cell, 24,000 total trials), the plausibility gate failed. Zero of 12 model-domain cells showed significant below-chance performance under sandbagging instruction. Exploratory analyses revealed three qualitatively distinct failure modes. Qwen-2.5-7B and Phi-3.5-mini largely ignored the sandbagging instruction, with 62-88% response identity with the honest baseline. Llama-3-8B complied substantially but implemented underperformance as a positional heuristic, collapsing its response distribution onto middle-alphabet options (E at 31.8%, F at 26.1%) regardless of where the correct answer fell. This produced accuracy boosts of up to 33 percentage points when the correct answer coincidentally occupied the model's preferred position. An explicit anti-task instruction ("pick the least likely answer") drove two of three models below chance, with accuracy as low as 0.024. The capability for answer-aware avoidance therefore exists but is not activated by "deliberately underperform." BCB did not fail as a logical marker of answer-aware avoidance. It was not observed in this regime because the model showing the largest behavioural shift exhibited behaviour consistent with a position-dominant response policy rather than content-aware answer avoidance. We propose that positional-distribution shift may be a more effective behavioural signature than below-chance accuracy for detecting prompted underperformance at this model scale.

Carbon-Taxed Transformers: A Green Compression Pipeline for Overgrown Language Models

Ajmain Inqiad Alam, Palash Roy, Chanchal K. Roy +2

The accelerating adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineering (SE) has brought with it a silent crisis: unsustainable computational cost. While these models demonstrate remarkable capabilities in different SE tasks, they are unmanageably large, slow to deploy, memory-intensive, and carbon-heavy. This reality threatens not only the scalability and accessibility of AI-powered SE, but also its long-term environmental sustainability. The research challenge is clear: we must go beyond accuracy and address efficiency and environmental cost as first-class design constraints. To meet this challenge, we introduce Carbon-Taxed Transformers (CTT), a systematic multi-architectural compression principled pipeline ordering inspired by economic carbon taxation principles. Drawing from the economic concept of carbon pricing, CTT operationalizes a computational carbon tax that penalizes architectural inefficiencies and rewards deployment-ready compression. We evaluate CTT across three core SE tasks: code clone detection, code summarization, and code generation, with models spanning encoder-only, encoder-decoder, and decoder-only architecture. Our results show that CTT delivers on inference: (1) up to 49x memory reduction, (2) time reduction up to 8-10x for clone detection, up to 3x for summarization, and 4-7x for generation, (3) up to 81% reduction in CO2 emissions and (4) CTT retains around 98% accuracy on clone detection, around 89% on summarization, and up to 91% (textual metrics) and 68% (pass@1) for generation. Two ablation studies show that pipeline ordering and individual component contributions are both essential, providing empirical justification for CTT's design and effectiveness. This work establishes a viable path toward responsible AI in SE through aggressive yet performance-preserving compression.

Frontier AI both amplifies existing risks and introduces qualitatively novel challenges. Not only is there a notable lack of stable scientific consensus resulting from the rapid pace of technological change, but emerging frontier AI safety practices are often misaligned with, or may undermine, established risk management frameworks. To address these challenges, we systematically surface open problems in frontier AI risk management. Adopting a problem-oriented approach, we examine each stage of the risk management process - risk planning, identification, analysis, evaluation, and mitigation - through a structured review of the literature, identifying unresolved challenges and the actors best positioned to address them. Recognising that different types of open problems call for different responses, we classify open problems according to whether they reflect (a) a lack of scientific or technical consensus, (b) misalignment with, or challenges to, established risk management frameworks, or (c) shortcomings in implementation despite apparent consensus and alignment. By mapping these open problems and identifying the actors best positioned to address them - including developers, deployers, regulators, standards bodies, researchers, and third-party evaluators - this work aims to clarify where progress is needed to enable robust and meaningful consensus on frontier AI risk management.The paper does not propose specific solutions; instead, it provides a problem-oriented, agenda-setting reference document, complemented by a living online repository, intended to support coordination, reduce duplication, and guide future research and governance efforts.

Governments increasingly deploy AI in public services, making transparency essential for accountability and public trust. Australia's Standard for AI Transparency Statements (AITS) requires government bodies to disclose how AI is used in practice, yet little empirical evidence exists on how these requirements are realised in documents. This paper presents a government AITS dataset, dubbed AITS-101, and provides one of the first systematic analysis of their content. Using stylometric, quantitative, and qualitative document analyses, we examine disclosure coverage, structure, and recurring patterns. Our findings reveal substantial variation in AI-related practice disclosure, highlight gaps between policy intent and implementation, and inform the design of more effective public-sector AI transparency standards.

Current AI systems increasingly operate in contexts where their outputs directly trigger real-world actions. Most existing approaches to AI safety, risk management, and governance focus on post-hoc validation, probabilistic risk estimation, or certification of model behavior. However, these approaches implicitly assume that once a decision is produced, it is eligible for execution. In this work, we introduce the Right-to-Act protocol, a deterministic, non-compensatory pre-execution decision layer that evaluates whether an AI-generated decision is permitted to be realized at all. Unlike compensatory systems, where high-confidence signals can override failed conditions, the proposed framework enforces strict structural constraints: if any required condition is unmet, execution is halted or deferred. We formalize the distinction between compensatory and non-compensatory decision regimes and define a pre-execution legitimacy boundary. Through a scenario-based case study, we demonstrate how identical AI outputs can lead to divergent outcomes when evaluated under a Right-to-Act protocol, preserving reversibility and preventing premature or irreversible actions. The proposed approach reframes AI control from optimizing decisions to governing their admissibility, introducing a protocol-level abstraction that operates independently of model architecture or training methodology.

In the early stages of scientific research, researchers rely on core scholarly judgments to identify relevant literature, assess credible evidence, and determine which directions merit pursuit. As AI tools become increasingly integrated into these early-stage workflows, the scholarly judgments that were once transparent and attributable to individual researchers become obscured, raising critical Responsible AI (RAI) concerns around accountability, transparency, and trust. Yet how these three dimensions manifest in real-time, in-situ scholarly practice remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a think-aloud study with 15 researchers to examine how they used AI tools powered by large language models (LLMs) across early-stage research tasks, including literature exploration, synthesis, and research ideation. Our key findings address the tripartite constructs of accountability, transparency, and trust. First, the confident tone of AI outputs misrepresents epistemic uncertainty, making it more difficult for researchers (who are ultimately accountable) to identify which outputs require the greatest scrutiny. Second, opaque retrieval and content construction make provenance difficult to establish for transparency. Third, trust in AI is fragile, context-dependent, and easily eroded. In response, participant researchers were seen to develop compensatory strategies to restore scholarly judgment under uncertainty. Overall, our findings serve to contextualize AI-mediated research as a RAI problem grounded in lived researcher experience and motivate attention to deliberate AI integration that preserves accountability, supports transparency, and fosters informed trust.