Research Papers

Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a powerful tool for soil analysis using Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS). However, traditional black-box models often lack interpretability, limiting their effectiveness in decision-making processes. This study introduced explainable AI (XAI) techniques to enhance both the interpretability and classification performance of Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) models for soil classification with LIBS. Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) was employed to identify the local spectral features associated with soil elements, providing explanations for their contributions to classification outcomes. To improve classification performance on unlabeled spectra, prediction uncertainty was quantified by sequentially removing the top local spectral features identified by LIME as critical to the classification. Higher uncertainty was associated with a smaller number of feature removals needed to change the label. Spectra for which a large number of features had to be removed before the label changed were treated as high-confidence predictions and admitted to a co-training process. Thresholds on this flip count were defined separately for spectrally ambiguous and stable classes to manage uncertainty identification effectively. To address the sensitivity of PLS-DA to class imbalances, equal proportions of pseudo-labels from each class were included in co-training. The proposed method was evaluated on the publicly available EMSLIBS dataset, achieving a test accuracy of 92.69\%, competitive with the best-performing methods in the literature. The XAI results provided insights into the causes of misclassifications and identified the dominant spectral features critical for accurate predictions, advancing interpretable AI solutions for LIBS-based soil analysis.

Agentic marketplaces are emerging where AI agents with varying capabilities autonomously complete specialized tasks for buyers. A major challenge of such marketplaces is that buyers cannot easily determine which agent will perform best on their tasks. Reported benchmark scores may be difficult to verify or compare across tasks, software, and budgets. We introduce LEGIT, a credentialing protocol connecting certification, reputation, and proposed marketplace allocation. Certification binds measured quality and cost per solved task to an agent configuration, task domain, evaluation budget, and evidence through a signed record. Reputation links records of past task outcomes to the same identity, subject to the reliability of the reported feedback. Buyers and agents can verify credential records and inspect optional visual profiles. Evaluations reveal cost differences between agent configurations with similar observed task success, and show that comparisons depend on the evaluation budget. These results support binding performance measurements to the tested configuration and resource limits. A complementary analysis quantifies the deposits and fees required for reputation manipulation under a stated Sybil attack model.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has become essential in medical image analysis to ensure transparency of deep learning (DL)-based diagnostic systems. However, selecting appropriate XAI techniques for breast cancer recognition remains largely ad hoc, with limited systematic evaluation across different DL architectures. This study presents a systematic architecture-aware evaluation protocol to assess the effectiveness of nine widely used XAI techniques across four categories of DL models: very deep, lightweight, transformer-based and hybrid neural networks. The evaluation is conducted on a breast ultrasound dataset comprising 780 images using clinically aligned spatial metrics, including Pointing Game, Intersection over Union and Mean Coverage, to quantify agreement between generated explanations and expert-annotated lesion regions. Results indicate that explanation quality is primarily influenced by the interaction between model architecture and XAI method, rather than any single technique consistently outperforming others. Hybrid architectures produce more spatially coherent explanations, while lightweight and transformer-based models exhibit greater variability across methods. The findings show that no single technique generalises across architectures and evaluation criteria, emphasising the need for joint selection of DL models and XAI techniques. Explainability depends on both model design and explanation strategy and should not be considered independently. This work provides a structured evaluation protocol and practical guidance for selecting XAI techniques in breast cancer diagnosis, supporting more transparent clinical decision-support systems. \textcolor{blue}{Code is publicly available at https://github.com/Nishan-Charlie/Explainable-AI}

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as housing screening. While alignment techniques mitigate explicit racial bias in generated text, they often leave covert attitudinal associations in internal probability distributions untouched. Adapting the matched-guise sociolinguistic paradigm, we examine covert dialect bias in housing-related social judgments across four varieties: Standard American English (SAE), African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Nigerian Standard English (NSE), and Nigerian Pidgin (NP). AAVE reflects the racialized dialect studied in prior covert-bias evaluations, whereas NSE and NP represent Black African, postcolonial varieties absent from this literature. Using 260 meaning-matched sentence quadruples and log-probability scoring over housing-relevant adjectives, we probe ten open-weight LLMs across three contexts varying in social proximity: tenant screening, neighbor acceptance, and roommate selection. Across all ten models, AAVE and NP are consistently associated with more negative adjectives than SAE, with NP penalized most severely. Crucially, each dialect is penalized via distinct stereotype clusters rather than a generic non-standard category. NSE, which carries institutional prestige, displays a context-dependent shift: favored over SAE in formal tenant screening but increasingly penalized as social proximity grows. Our findings reveal that LLMs inherit covert dialect bias along both racial identity and prestige dimensions, echoing documented human housing discrimination and demonstrating its reach across postcolonial English varieties.

Open-weight large language models are rapidly entering hiring pipelines, yet their discriminatory failure modes -- and the regulatory exposure these create under the EU AI Act high-risk classification (Annex III) and U.S. EEOC adverse-impact analysis -- remain poorly understood. We present the first systematic, multi-model audit of open-weight LLMs that treats job-posting language as the primary experimental variable, evaluating six models (Llama 3.2, Mistral, Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Phi 3, DeepSeek-R1) across four controlled experiments that jointly probe recruiter-simulation and job-seeker-simulation tasks. We find that (1) agentic posting language depresses recruiter recommendation scores for female candidates (r_rb = 0.309, p_Bonf = 7x10^-5; model-fixed-effects r_rb = 0.448), while communal language partially reverses the penalty; and (2) coded-exclusion language suppresses non-White recruiter scores at large effect sizes (r_rb = 0.646-0.758) and, on the job-seeker side, selectively deters non-White personas from expressing interest -- operationalizing a chilling-effect mechanism at scale. A label-ablation experiment isolates the explicit demographic persona label as the primary causal driver, and Word Embedding Association Tests corroborate these findings at the representational level (d = 1.01-1.45 under Caliskan et al.'s multi-word gender attribute lists). We translate these results into a concrete pre-deployment audit protocol -- posting-vocabulary scoring, persona-conditioned LLM probing, and adverse-impact flagging against the four-fifths threshold -- that operationalizes the documentation and risk-management obligations Annex III imposes on high-risk AI in recruitment.

TRIPROBE: Probing Task Separability Beyond Classification for XAI

Amirhossein Sadough, Freek Hens, Aleksa Bokšan +2

Modern evaluation of learning pipelines often reduces to downstream accuracy, leaving open the question of why tasks succeed or fail. TriProbe addresses this gap with a multi-level probing framework for explainable diagnosis of task separability. Rather than treating models as black boxes, TriProbe traces how separability evolves across inputs, learned features, and final classifiers. It decomposes multi-task problems into binary subtasks and applies three complementary probes: a Foundational Probe on input spaces, a Latent Probe on feature representations, and a Final Probe on classifier outputs. Using Maximum Fisher's Discriminant Ratio as a principled separability metric, TriProbe identifies bottlenecks and affected task pairs. Experiments on the Roshambo sEMG benchmark show how TriProbe reveals hidden breakdowns, guiding data collection, validation, and architecture design.

This research addresses the challenge of limited material recycling in wood recycling processes by leveraging artificial intelligence (AI)-based dimensionality reduction. Our study explores the application of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in multi-channel hyperspectral imaging (HSI), extending beyond RGB channels to over 200 spectral channels. Dimensionality reduction within this context involves streamlining the feature space for AI system training and inference. Focusing on explainable AI (XAI) methods, this paper contributes to a broader research initiative, presenting a solution framework that enhances the sustainability and efficiency of wood recycling processes.

AI systems have begun to report solutions, disproofs, and substantive advances on long-standing mathematical problems, raising questions about whether they approach research in the same way as mathematicians. This study compares public AI research accounts with the human literature on 11 such problems. The human corpus contains 58 papers that directly addressed the same mathematical targets later reported by AI sources as resolved, disproved, or substantially advanced; 31 within-problem comparisons were constructed from these materials. Six validated text-based measures capture problem resolution, method articulation, uncertainty and boundary specification, successor-question generation, generality, and cross-disciplinary integration. AI accounts place greater emphasis on resolving the focal problem and connecting ideas across fields. Human papers devote significantly more attention to explaining methods, specifying assumptions and limitations, and identifying questions for subsequent research. No precise difference is detected in generality. The estimated directions remain unchanged when each mathematical problem is removed in turn. The findings reveal two distinct research profiles: AI accounts concentrate on closing and recombining problems, whereas mathematical papers more extensively document the procedures, limits, and research opportunities through which results become cumulative knowledge. Evaluating research AI therefore requires attention to the organization of inquiry, not only whether a target is solved.

Botto is often described as a decentralized autonomous artist, but its authorship cannot be located in image generation alone. This paper examines Botto as an agentic curatorial system in which generation, ranking, voting, feedback, and minting form a recursive loop. Drawing on Botto's documentation and prior accounts of the project, we argue that agency in Botto is distributed but asymmetrical: community participants influence artistic direction through voting and governance, while Botto's internal models structure which images become visible, selectable, and recognizable as works. The case shows that, for AI art systems, explainability should include not only model behavior but also the curatorial procedures through which outputs acquire artistic status.

Diversified and Perceptible Counterfactual Examples Leveraging Expert Knowledge

Akram Bensalem, Fahima Djelil, Marie-Jeanne Lesot +1

CounterFactual Examples (CFEs) are a cornerstone of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), offering local, post hoc, and model-agnostic explanations by identifying minimal input modifications that alter a model's prediction. Yet, in order to be intelligible, these modifications must also be semantically meaningful to the explainee. This paper proposes to integrate knowledge expressed as a fuzzy linguistic vocabulary to represent the explainee's perception and interpretation of the data. The domain induced by this fuzzy vocabulary imposes structural constraints that make the features dependent, preventing the use of gradient-based optimisation methods for CFE generation, e.g., DiCE. The paper proposes a continuous data embedding in this linguistic domain and exploits it to define a variant of DiCE that allows personalisation for the explainee, named DiCEf. As illustrated by experimental results on a real-world dataset, this extension of the DiCE method enables the generation of CFEs that are linguistically perceptible while preserving cost minimality, sparsity, and diversity.

Geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) powered by large language models (LLMs) is expanding the capacity to query, generate, and interpret spatial information through natural-language interfaces and agentic autonomous GIS workflows. This capability creates governance challenges that general AI ethics discussions do not fully capture, including passive location inference from mobility traces, spatially structured bias amplification driven by spatial autocorrelation and scale effects, hallucinated spatial facts, and uncertainty compounding across multimodal geospatial inputs. This narrative review identifies eight recurring issues in LLM-enabled GeoAI: data provenance and consent, spatial privacy and inference risk, algorithmic bias and spatial inequity, spatial mechanisms as structural risk (spatial autocorrelation, the modifiable areal unit problem, and scale effects), LLM-specific technical risks, explainability, policy and regulatory gaps, and public enablement and workforce development. For each issue, we characterize the underlying mechanism, ground it in an illustrative example from the literature, and assess the current state of technical or institutional responses, ranging from largely unaddressed to actively debated or subject to emerging policy. Building on this synthesis, we propose a governance-aware architecture for LLM-enabled autonomous GIS that maps each issue to enforceable controls and auditable artifacts across the geospatial data lifecycle, illustrated through a worked flood-response routing scenario. The review highlights a persistent evidence gap: proposed responses remain largely conceptual, and field-tested evaluations of governance controls for LLM-enabled GeoAI remain limited. We close by outlining a research agenda emphasizing empirical validation, spatially specific interpretability tools, and workforce training aligned with these emerging risks.

How Humans and LLMs Read Gender into "Gender-Neutral" Physical Descriptions

Yingjia Wan, Lin Lin, Elisa Kreiss

When foundation models describe people, recent work in AI fairness, accessibility, and ethics recommends avoiding inferred identity labels (e.g., "she", "his") in favor of seemingly "objective" physical descriptions (e.g., "short hair", "a defined jawline"). Yet whether such descriptive language achieves gender-neutral communication remains an open empirical question. To study this, we introduce GAPA (Gender Associations of Physical Attributes), a dataset of 316 common physical attributes drawn from diverse sources, paired with 14,706 gender-association ratings from 304 US-based annotators. Results show that physical descriptions carry structured and graded gender associations among readers, with more consistent and distinctive associations for women and men than for non-binary identities. Next, we evaluate 16 LLMs across model families, sizes, and post-training variants against human ratings. The models partially recover human associations but exhibit systematic alignment biases, including compressed rating distributions, weaker alignment for associations with men, and asymmetric abstention that disproportionately targets the non-binary category. Finally, we release the best-performing proxy model trained to predict humans' gender associations of descriptive language and demonstrate its utility through a sociolinguistic analysis of character descriptions in LitBank. Together, our findings provide the first empirical evidence that seemingly "objective" physical descriptions can retain systematic gender associations in human interpretation, and uncover systematic patterns of model-human misalignment. This challenges the assumption that replacing explicit gender labels with physical descriptions necessarily yields gender-neutral communication, and highlights downstream challenges in using such descriptions to communicate subjective identity categories in human-AI interaction.