Research Papers

As large language models become increasingly capable, it is critical that their outputs can be easily checked by less capable systems. Prover-verifier games can be used to improve checkability of model outputs, but display a degradation in accuracy compared to a baseline trained only to maximize correctness -- a phenonemon named legibility tax. We propose a solution by decoupling the correctness from the checkability condition and instead training a "translator" model that turns a fixed solver model's solution into a checkable form. This allows us to first train the solver to maximize correctness, and then train the translator to translate the solver into a checkable form while retaining the solver's answer. To accommodate this new objective of translation, we formulate a decoupled prover-verifier game (DPVG) where the equilibria correspond to faithful and checkable translators.

Large language models are increasingly used in decision-making tasks that require them to process information from a variety of sources, including both human experts and other algorithmic agents. How do LLMs weigh the information provided by these different sources? We consider the well-studied phenomenon of algorithm aversion, in which human decision-makers exhibit bias against predictions from algorithms. Drawing upon experimental paradigms from behavioural economics, we evaluate how eightdifferent LLMs delegate decision-making tasks when the delegatee is framed as a human expert or an algorithmic agent. To be inclusive of different evaluation formats, we conduct our study with two task presentations: stated preferences, modeled through direct queries about trust towards either agent, and revealed preferences, modeled through providing in-context examples of the performance of both agents. When prompted to rate the trustworthiness of human experts and algorithms across diverse tasks, LLMs give higher ratings to the human expert, which correlates with prior results from human respondents. However, when shown the performance of a human expert and an algorithm and asked to place an incentivized bet between the two, LLMs disproportionately choose the algorithm, even when it performs demonstrably worse. These discrepant results suggest that LLMs may encode inconsistent biases towards humans and algorithms, which need to be carefully considered when they are deployed in high-stakes scenarios. Furthermore, we discuss the sensitivity of LLMs to task presentation formats that should be broadly scrutinized in evaluation robustness for AI safety.

Deep learning has significantly advanced automated brain tumor diagnosis, yet clinical adoption remains limited by interpretability and computational constraints. Conventional models often act as opaque ''black boxes'' and fail to quantify the complex, irregular tumor boundaries that characterize malignant growth. To address these challenges, we present XMorph, an explainable and computationally efficient framework for fine-grained classification of three prominent brain tumor types: glioma, meningioma, and pituitary tumors. We propose an Information-Weighted Boundary Normalization (IWBN) mechanism that emphasizes diagnostically relevant boundary regions alongside nonlinear chaotic and clinically validated features, enabling a richer morphological representation of tumor growth. A dual-channel explainable AI module combines GradCAM++ visual cues with LLM-generated textual rationales, translating model reasoning into clinically interpretable insights. The proposed framework achieves a classification accuracy of 96.0%, demonstrating that explainability and high performance can co-exist in AI-based medical imaging systems. The source code and materials for XMorph are all publicly available at: https://github.com/ALSER-Lab/XMorph.

Frontier AI Safety Policies concentrate on prevention: capability evaluations, deployment gates, and usage constraints, while neglecting the capacity to coordinate responses when prevention fails. We argue this coordination gap is structural: investments in ecosystem robustness yield diffuse benefits but concentrated costs, generating systematic underinvestment. Drawing on risk regimes in nuclear safety, pandemic preparedness, and critical infrastructure, we propose that similar mechanisms (precommitment, shared protocols, standing coordination venues) could be adapted to frontier AI governance. Closing the gap requires cross-actor "note-exchange" of ex ante if-then response logic, exposing not only triggers but the decision processes that convert signals into actions. Without such architecture, institutions cannot learn from failures at the pace of relevance.

TAMUSA-Chat: A Domain-Adapted Large Language Model Conversational System for Research and Responsible Deployment

Izzat Alsmadi, Anas Alsobeh

This paper presents TAMUSA-Chat, a research-oriented framework for building domain-adapted large language model conversational systems. The work addresses critical challenges in adapting general-purpose foundation models to institutional contexts through supervised fine-tuning, retrieval-augmented generation, and systematic evaluation methodologies. We describe the complete architecture encompassing data acquisition from institutional sources, preprocessing pipelines, embedding construction, model training workflows, and deployment strategies. The system integrates modular components enabling reproducible experimentation with training configurations, hyper-parameters, and evaluation protocols. Our implementation demonstrates how academic institutions can develop contextually grounded conversational agents while maintaining transparency, governance compliance, and responsible AI practices. Through empirical analysis of fine-tuning behavior across model sizes and training iterations, we provide insights into domain adaptation efficiency, computational resource requirements, and quality-cost trade-offs. The publicly available codebase at https://github.com/alsmadi/TAMUSA_LLM_Based_Chat_app supports continued research into institutional LLM deployment, evaluation methodologies, and ethical considerations for educational AI systems.

The question of whether artificial entities deserve moral consideration has become one of the defining ethical challenges of AI research. Existing frameworks for moral patiency rely on verified ontological properties, such as sentience, phenomenal consciousness, or the capacity for suffering, that remain epistemically inaccessible in computational systems. This reliance creates a governance vacuum: millions of users form sustained affective bonds with conversational AI, yet no regulatory instrument distinguishes these interactions from transactional tool use. We introduce Relate (Relational Ethics for Leveled Assessment of Technological Entities), a framework that reframes AI moral patiency from ontological verification toward relational capacity and embodied interaction. Through a systematic comparison of seven governance frameworks, we demonstrate that current trustworthy AI instruments treat all human-AI encounters identically as tool use, ignoring the relational and embodied dynamics that posthumanist scholarship anticipated. We propose relational impact assessments, graduated moral consideration protocols, and interdisciplinary ethics integration as concrete instruments, and we include a sample Relational Impact Assessment applied to a deployed companion AI system. We do not claim current AI systems are conscious. We demonstrate that the ethical vocabularies governing them are inadequate to the embodied, relational realities these systems produce.

The evaluation of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods is a rapidly growing field, characterized by a wide variety of approaches. This diversity highlights the complexity of the XAI evaluation, which, unlike traditional AI assessment, lacks a universally correct ground truth for the explanation, making objective evaluation challenging. One promising direction to address this issue involves the use of what we term Synthetic Artificial Intelligence Ground truth (SAIG) methods, which generate artificial ground truths to enable the direct evaluation of XAI techniques. This paper presents the first review and analysis of SAIG methods. We introduce a novel taxonomy to classify these approaches, identifying seven key features that distinguish different SAIG methods. Our comparative study reveals a concerning lack of consensus on the most effective XAI evaluation techniques, underscoring the need for further research and standardization in this area.

Open Source Software (OSS) projects follow diverse lifecycle trajectories shaped by evolving patterns of contribution, coordination, and community engagement. Understanding these trajectories is essential for stakeholders seeking to assess project organization and health at scale. However, prior work has largely relied on static or aggregated metrics, such as project age or cumulative activity, providing limited insight into how OSS sustainability unfolds over time. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical predictive framework that models OSS projects as belonging to distinct lifecycle stages grounded in established socio-technical categorizations of OSS development. Rather than treating sustainability solely as project longevity, these lifecycle stages operationalize sustainability as a multidimensional construct integrating contribution activity, community participation, and maintenance dynamics. The framework combines engineered tabular indicators with 24-month temporal activity sequences and employs a multi-stage classification pipeline to distinguish lifecycle stages associated with different coordination and participation regimes. To support transparency, we incorporate explainable AI techniques to examine the relative contribution of feature categories to model predictions. Evaluated on a large corpus of OSS repositories, the proposed approach achieves over 94\% overall accuracy in lifecycle stage classification. Attribution analyses consistently identify contribution activity and community-related features as dominant signals, highlighting the central role of collective participation dynamics.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to provide transparent insights into machine learning models, yet the reliability of many feature attribution methods remains a critical challenge. Prior research (Haufe et al., 2014; Wilming et al., 2022, 2023) has demonstrated that these methods often erroneously assign significant importance to non-informative variables, such as suppressor variables, leading to fundamental misinterpretations. Since statistical suppression is induced by feature dependencies, this study investigates whether data whitening, a common preprocessing technique for decorrelation, can mitigate such errors. Using the established XAI-TRIS benchmark (Clark et al., 2024b), which offers synthetic ground-truth data and quantitative measures of explanation correctness, we empirically evaluate 16 popular feature attribution methods applied in combination with 5 distinct whitening transforms. Additionally, we analyze a minimal linear two-dimensional classification problem (Wilming et al., 2023) to theoretically assess whether whitening can remove the impact of suppressor features from Bayes-optimal models. Our results indicate that, while specific whitening techniques can improve explanation performance, the degree of improvement varies substantially across XAI methods and model architectures. These findings highlight the complex relationship between data non-linearities, preprocessing quality, and attribution fidelity, underscoring the vital role of pre-processing techniques in enhancing model interpretability.

Incentive-Aware AI Safety via Strategic Resource Allocation: A Stackelberg Security Games Perspective

Cheol Woo Kim, Davin Choo, Tzeh Yuan Neoh +1

As AI systems grow more capable and autonomous, ensuring their safety and reliability requires not only model-level alignment but also strategic oversight of the humans and institutions involved in their development and deployment. Existing safety frameworks largely treat alignment as a static optimization problem (e.g., tuning models to desired behavior) while overlooking the dynamic, adversarial incentives that shape how data are collected, how models are evaluated, and how they are ultimately deployed. We propose a new perspective on AI safety grounded in Stackelberg Security Games (SSGs): a class of game-theoretic models designed for adversarial resource allocation under uncertainty. By viewing AI oversight as a strategic interaction between defenders (auditors, evaluators, and deployers) and attackers (malicious actors, misaligned contributors, or worst-case failure modes), SSGs provide a unifying framework for reasoning about incentive design, limited oversight capacity, and adversarial uncertainty across the AI lifecycle. We illustrate how this framework can inform (1) training-time auditing against data/feedback poisoning, (2) pre-deployment evaluation under constrained reviewer resources, and (3) robust multi-model deployment in adversarial environments. This synthesis bridges algorithmic alignment and institutional oversight design, highlighting how game-theoretic deterrence can make AI oversight proactive, risk-aware, and resilient to manipulation.

This paper addresses robotic system engineering for safety- and mission-critical applications by bridging the gap between high-level objectives and formal, executable specifications. The proposed method, Robotic System Task to Model Transformation Methodology (RSTM2) is an ontology-driven, hierarchical approach using stochastic timed Petri nets with resources, enabling Monte Carlo simulations at mission, system, and subsystem levels. A hypothetical case study demonstrates how the RSTM2 method supports architectural trades, resource allocation, and performance analysis under uncertainty. Ontological concepts further enable explainable AI-based assistants, facilitating fully autonomous specification synthesis. The methodology offers particular benefits to complex multi-robot systems, such as the NASA CADRE mission, representing decentralized, resource-aware, and adaptive autonomous systems of the future.

Machine Unlearning aims to remove the influence of specific data or concepts from trained models while preserving overall performance, a capability increasingly required by data protection regulations and responsible AI practices. Despite recent progress, unlearning in text-to-image diffusion models remains challenging due to high computational costs and the difficulty of balancing effective forgetting with retention of unrelated concepts. We introduce Self-distillation for PARameter Efficient Removal (SPARE), a two-stage unlearning method for image generation that combines parameter localization with self-distillation. SPARE first identifies parameters most responsible for generation of the unwanted concepts using gradient-based saliency and constrains updates through sparse low rank adapters, ensuring lightweight, localized modifications. In a second stage, SPARE applies a self-distillation objective that overwrites the unwanted concept with a user-defined surrogate while preserving behavior for other concepts. In addition we proposed a timestep sampling scheme for diffusion models to target only the crucial timesteps for a given concept leading to efficient unlearning. SPARE surpasses the current state-of-the-art on the UnlearnCanvas benchmark, and ablation studies on several datasets indicate fine-grained control over the forgetting-retention trade-off. Our results demonstrate that SPARE achieves strong concept erasure and high retainability across various domains, making it a suitable solution for selective unlearning in diffusion-based image generation models.