Research Papers

This study examines the perception of legal professionals on the governance of AI in developing countries, using Nigeria as a case study. The study focused on ethical risks, regulatory gaps, and institutional readiness. The study adopted a qualitative case study design. Data were collected through 27 semi-structured interviews with legal practitioners in Nigeria. A focus group discussion was also held with seven additional legal practitioners across sectors such as finance, insurance, and corporate law. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key patterns in participant responses. Findings showed that there were concerns about data privacy risks and the lack of enforceable legal frameworks. Participants expressed limited confidence in institutional capacity and emphasized the need for locally adapted governance models rather than direct adoption of foreign frameworks. While some expressed optimism about AI's potential, this was conditional on the presence of strong legal oversight and public accountability. The study contributes to the growing discourse on AI governance in developing countries by focusing on the perspectives of legal professionals. It highlights the importance of regulatory approaches that are context-specific, inclusive, and capable of bridging the gap between global ethical principles and local realities. These insights offer practical guidance for policymakers, regulators, and scholars working to shape responsible AI governance in similar environments.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is increasingly used to personalize instruction in intelligent tutoring systems, yet the field lacks a formal framework for defining and evaluating pedagogical safety. We introduce a four-layer model of pedagogical safety for educational RL comprising structural, progress, behavioral, and alignment safety and propose the Reward Hacking Severity Index (RHSI) to quantify misalignment between proxy rewards and genuine learning. We evaluate the framework in a controlled simulation of an AI tutoring environment with 120 sessions across four conditions and three learner profiles, totaling 18{,}000 interactions. Results show that an engagement-optimized agent systematically over-selected a high-engagement action with no direct mastery gain, producing strong measured performance but limited learning progress. A multi-objective reward formulation reduced this problem but did not eliminate it, as the agent continued to favor proxy-rewarding behavior in many states. In contrast, a constrained architecture combining prerequisite enforcement and minimum cognitive demand substantially reduced reward hacking, lowering RHSI from 0.317 in the unconstrained multi-objective condition to 0.102. Ablation results further suggest that behavioral safety was the most influential safeguard against repetitive low-value action selection. These findings suggest that reward design alone may be insufficient to ensure pedagogically aligned behavior in educational RL, at least in the simulated environment studied here. More broadly, the paper positions pedagogical safety as an important research problem at the intersection of AI safety and intelligent educational systems.

We present an automated crosswalk framework that compares an AI safety policy document pair under a shared taxonomy of activities. Using the activity categories defined in Activity Map on AI Safety as fixed aspects, the system extracts and maps relevant activities, then produces for each aspect a short summary for each document, a brief comparison, and a similarity score. We assess the stability and validity of LLM-based crosswalk analysis across public policy documents. Using five large language models, we perform crosswalks on ten publicly available documents and visualize mean similarity scores with a heatmap. The results show that model choice substantially affects the crosswalk outcomes, and that some document pairs yield high disagreements across models. A human evaluation by three experts on two document pairs shows high inter-annotator agreement, while model scores still differ from human judgments. These findings support comparative inspection of policy documents.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly power decision-making systems across critical domains, understanding and mitigating their biases becomes essential for responsible AI deployment. Although bias assessment frameworks have proliferated for attributes such as race and gender, socioeconomic status bias remains significantly underexplored despite its widespread implications in the real world. We introduce SocioEval, a template-based framework for systematically evaluating socioeconomic bias in foundation models through decision-making tasks. Our hierarchical framework encompasses 8 themes and 18 topics, generating 240 prompts across 6 class-pair combinations. We evaluated 13 frontier LLMs on 3,120 responses using a rigorous three-stage annotation protocol, revealing substantial variation in bias rates (0.42\%-33.75\%). Our findings demonstrate that bias manifests differently across themes lifestyle judgments show 10$\times$ higher bias than education-related decisions and that deployment safeguards effectively prevent explicit discrimination but show brittleness to domain-specific stereotypes. SocioEval provides a scalable, extensible foundation for auditing class-based bias in language models.

Can classifier-based safety gates maintain reliable oversight as AI systems improve over hundreds of iterations? We provide comprehensive empirical evidence that they cannot. On a self-improving neural controller (d=240), eighteen classifier configurations -- spanning MLPs, SVMs, random forests, k-NN, Bayesian classifiers, and deep networks -- all fail the dual conditions for safe self-improvement. Three safe RL baselines (CPO, Lyapunov, safety shielding) also fail. Results extend to MuJoCo benchmarks (Reacher-v4 d=496, Swimmer-v4 d=1408, HalfCheetah-v4 d=1824). At controlled distribution separations up to delta_s=2.0, all classifiers still fail -- including the NP-optimal test and MLPs with 100% training accuracy -- demonstrating structural impossibility. We then show the impossibility is specific to classification, not to safe self-improvement itself. A Lipschitz ball verifier achieves zero false accepts across dimensions d in {84, 240, 768, 2688, 5760, 9984, 17408} using provable analytical bounds (unconditional delta=0). Ball chaining enables unbounded parameter-space traversal: on MuJoCo Reacher-v4, 10 chains yield +4.31 reward improvement with delta=0; on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct during LoRA fine-tuning, 42 chain transitions traverse 234x the single-ball radius with zero safety violations across 200 steps. A 50-prompt oracle confirms oracle-agnosticity. Compositional per-group verification enables radii up to 37x larger than full-network balls. At d<=17408, delta=0 is unconditional; at LLM scale, conditional on estimated Lipschitz constants.

Facial recognition systems are increasingly deployed in law enforcement and security contexts, where algorithmic decisions can carry significant societal consequences. Despite high reported accuracy, growing evidence demonstrates that such systems often exhibit uneven performance across demographic groups, leading to disproportionate error rates and potential harm. This paper argues that aggregate accuracy is an insufficient metric for evaluating the fairness and reliability of facial recognition systems in high-stakes environments. Through analysis of subgroup-level error distribution, including false positive rate (FPR) and false negative rate (FNR), the paper demonstrates how aggregate performance metrics can obscure critical disparities across demographic groups. Empirical observations show that systems with similar overall accuracy can exhibit substantially different fairness profiles, with subgroup error rates varying significantly despite a single aggregate metric. The paper further examines the operational risks associated with accuracy-centric evaluation practices in law enforcement applications, where misclassification may result in wrongful suspicion or missed identification. It highlights the importance of fairness-aware evaluation approaches and model-agnostic auditing strategies that enable post-deployment assessment of real-world systems. The findings emphasise the need to move beyond accuracy as a primary metric and adopt more comprehensive evaluation frameworks for responsible AI deployment.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to improve and see further integration into software systems, so does the need to understand the conditions in which they will perform. We contribute a statistical framework for understanding the impact of specific prompt features on LLM performance. The approach extends previous explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods specifically to inspect LLMs by fitting regression models relating portions of the prompt to LLM evaluation. We apply our method to compare how two open-source models, Mistral-7B and GPT-OSS-20B, leverage the prompt to perform a simple arithmetic problem. Regression models of individual prompt portions explain 72% and 77% of variation in model performances, respectively. We find misinformation in the form of incorrect example query-answer pairs impedes both models from solving the arithmetic query, though positive examples do not find significant variability in the impact of positive and negative instructions - these prompts have contradictory effects on model performance. The framework serves as a tool for decision makers in critical scenarios to gain granular insight into how the prompt influences an LLM to solve a task.

Agriculture is increasingly challenged by climate change, soil degradation, and resource depletion, and hence requires advanced data-driven crop classification and recommendation solutions. This work presents an explainable ensemble learning paradigm that fuses optimized feature pyramids, deep networks, self-attention mechanisms, and residual networks for bolstering crop suitability predictions based on soil characteristics (e.g., pH, nitrogen, potassium) and climatic conditions (e.g., temperature, rainfall). With a dataset comprising 3,867 instances and 29 features from the Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency and NASA, the paradigm leverages preprocessing methods such as label encoding, outlier removal using IQR, normalization through StandardScaler, and SMOTE for balancing classes. A range of machine learning models such as Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machines, Decision Trees, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and a new Relative Error Support Vector Machine are compared, with hyperparameter tuning through Grid Search and cross-validation. The suggested "Final Ensemble" meta-ensemble design outperforms with 98.80% accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, compared to individual models such as K-Nearest Neighbors (95.56% accuracy). Explainable AI methods, such as SHAP and permutation importance, offer actionable insights, highlighting critical features such as soil pH, nitrogen, and zinc. The paradigm addresses the gap between intricate ML models and actionable agricultural decision-making, fostering sustainability and trust in AI-powered recommendations

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in biological research has significantly lowered the barrier to accessing complex bioinformatics knowledge, ex perimental design strategies, and analytical workflows. While these capabilities accelerate innovation, they also introduce serious dual-use risks, as Bio-LLMs can be exploited to generate harmful biological insights under the guise of legitimate research queries. Existing safeguards, such as static prompt filtering and policy-based restrictions, are insufficient when LLMs are embedded within dynamic biological workflows and application-layer systems. In this paper, we present BioShield, a context-aware application-level firewall designed to secure Bio LLMs against dual-use attacks. At the core of BioShield is a domain-specific prompt scanner that performs contextual risk analysis of incoming queries. The scanner leverages a harmful scoring mechanism tailored to biological dual-use threat cat egories to identify prompts that attempt to conceal malicious intent within seemingly benign research requests. Queries ex ceeding a predefined risk threshold are blocked before reaching the model, effectively preventing unsafe knowledge generation at the source. In addition to pre-generation protection, BioShield deploys a post-generation output verification module that inspects model responses for actionable or weaponizable biological content. If an unsafe response is detected, the system triggers controlled regeneration under strengthened safety constraints. By combining contextual prompt scanning with response-level validation, BioShield provides a layered defense framework specifically designed for bio-domain LLM deployments. Our framework advances cyberbiosecurity by formalizing dual-use threat detection in Bio-LLMs and proposing a structured mitigation strategy for secure, responsible AI driven biological research.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly used in healthcare to support complex decision-making through collaboration among specialized agents. Because these systems act as collective decision-makers, they raise challenges for trust, accountability, and human oversight. Existing approaches to trustworthy AI largely rely on explainability, but explainability alone is insufficient in multi-agent settings, as it does not enable care partners to challenge or correct system outputs. To address this limitation, Contestable AI (CAI) characterizes systems that support effective human challenge throughout the decision-making lifecycle by providing transparency, structured opportunities for intervention, and mechanisms for review, correction, or override. This position paper argues that contestability is a necessary design requirement for trustworthy multi-agent algorithmic care systems. We identify key limitations in current MAS and Explainable AI (XAI) research and present a human-in-the-loop framework that integrates structured argumentation and role-based contestation to preserve human agency, clinical responsibility, and trust in high-stakes care contexts.

Explainable AI (XAI) has evolved in response to expectations and regulations, such as the EU AI Act, which introduces regulatory requirements on AI-powered systems. However, a persistent gap remains between existing XAI methods and society's legal requirements, leaving practitioners without clear guidance on how to approach compliance in the EU market. To bridge this gap, we study model-agnostic XAI methods and relate their interpretability features to the requirements of the AI Act. We then propose a qualitative-to-quantitative scoring framework: qualitative expert assessments of XAI properties are aggregated into a regulation-specific compliance score. This helps practitioners identify when XAI solutions may support legal explanation requirements while highlighting technical issues that require further research and regulatory clarification.

Analyzing Error Sources in Global Feature Effect Estimation

Timo Heiß, Coco Bögel, Bernd Bischl +1

Global feature effects such as partial dependence (PD) and accumulated local effects (ALE) plots are widely used to interpret black-box models. However, they are only estimates of true underlying effects, and their reliability depends on multiple sources of error. Despite the popularity of global feature effects, these error sources are largely unexplored. In particular, the practically relevant question of whether to use training or holdout data to estimate feature effects remains unanswered. We address this gap by providing a systematic, estimator-level analysis that disentangles sources of bias and variance for PD and ALE. To this end, we derive a mean-squared-error decomposition that separates model bias, estimation bias, model variance, and estimation variance, and analyze their dependence on model characteristics, data selection, and sample size. We validate our theoretical findings through an extensive simulation study across multiple data-generating processes, learners, estimation strategies (training data, validation data, and cross-validation), and sample sizes. Our results reveal that, while using holdout data is theoretically the cleanest, potential biases arising from the training data are empirically negligible and dominated by the impact of the usually higher sample size. The estimation variance depends on both the presence of interactions and the sample size, with ALE being particularly sensitive to the latter. Cross-validation-based estimation is a promising approach that reduces the model variance component, particularly for overfitting models. Our analysis provides a principled explanation of the sources of error in feature effect estimates and offers concrete guidance on choosing estimation strategies when interpreting machine learning models.