Research Papers

The EU AI Act introduces mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems with the explicit goal of ensuring the development and operation of trustworthy AI. At the same time, AI risk management practices rely on structured risk taxonomies to systematically identify and treat AI-specific risk sources. As both the AI Act and established risk taxonomies aim to address AI-induced risks, a natural question is whether they align in the risk sources they cover. However, no clear mapping exists between the risks implicitly addressed by the Act's high-risk requirements and established taxonomies, leaving practitioners without a structured basis for aligning regulatory obligations with AI risk management practice. This paper presents a systematic classification of the requirements extracted from the EU AI Act Section 2 (Requirements for high-risk AI systems), revealing that only a minority directly address AI-specific risk sources, while the majority impose organizational process and documentation obligations. From the AI risk-related requirements, a consolidated list of distinct AI-specific risk sources is derived. The resulting EU AI Act Risk Source List takes an important step towards bridging the gap between legal obligation and AI risk management practice, providing a structured reference for explicit comparison between existing AI risk taxonomies and the risk sources implicitly addressed by the EU AI Act. Important Note: This is the authors' preprint. The paper was presented at the 4th International Conference on Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Multidisciplinary Applications. A link to the conference's official proceedings will be provided upon publication.

Exploring Second-Order Pattern Recognition in Speaker Recognition

Yanze Xu, Wenwu Wang, Mark D. Plumbley

In traditional pattern recognition tasks, neural networks are trained to recognise human-defined patterns (e.g. audio categories) in model inputs (e.g. audio). Meanwhile, some Explainable AI (XAI) methods explain latent patterns characterising the network's recognition of inputs as human-defined patterns; this work calls these latent patterns second-order patterns and proposes to discover them. Accordingly, we apply a hierarchical clustering algorithm to analyse whether our speaker recognition network's representations learned from known utterances naturally form hierarchical clusters. Each resulting cluster is a second-order pattern that characterises a context in our network's recognition of the known utterances as speaker identities. All discovered second-order patterns are then interpreted using the Hierarchical Cluster-Class Matching (HCCM) method. Moreover, we propose a new task, second-order pattern recognition, to identify which of the discovered second-order patterns characterising the recognition of known utterances also apply to unseen utterances, thereby characterising the recognition of unseen utterances. Accordingly, we design the Hierarchical Cluster Navigation and Assignment (HCNA) method. HCNA recognises a second-order pattern as applying to an unseen utterance when the utterance's network representation lies within the extrapolation space of the cluster regarded as that second-order pattern. Experimental results demonstrate that the extrapolation space introduced in HCNA substantially improves task performance.

Energy consumption forecasting relies on increasingly complex machine learning (ML) models, such as Genetic Programming-based symbolic regressors, whose predictions can be difficult for facility managers and building operators to interpret. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques address this opacity, but traditional XAI dashboards require substantial technical expertise and provide limited flexibility for dynamic, context-aware inquiry. Conversational XAI systems offer a promising alternative; however, previous approaches, such as TalkToModel, were constrained by rigid custom grammars and achieved only 76.8% intent-parsing accuracy. This paper introduces the Explainability Assistant, an open-source conversational XAI system that leverages the function-calling capabilities of modern Large Language Models (LLMs) to overcome these limitations. The system achieves 94% intent-parsing accuracy, supports flexible natural language interaction, and adapts to different ML problem types without task-specific fine-tuning. We present the system's architecture and report results from a comparative evaluation conducted with energy domain specialists, contrasting the Explainability Assistant with a traditional XAI dashboard. The evaluation suggests improved usability and consistent task accuracy, with all experts unanimously preferring the conversational interface for practical use.

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti

Claims that AI systems improve decisions, broaden access, reduce harm, or empower users can exceed what their evaluation supports. This gap motivates our ongoing work on RISE AI. In this paper, we examine the proposed framework in light of Pope Leo XIVs Magnifica Humanitas, particularly its treatment of human dignity, ownership, and technological power. We develop three linked propositions. First, AI adoption can reveal unmet human needs and institutional weaknesses, while deployment can change how institutions respond to them. We propose a rupture test to examine whether deployment repairs or compounds existing failures, substitutes for human support, or conceals problems behind improved performance. The test would compare deployment with existing practice and feasible human or non AI alternatives. Second, responsible AI must examine the institutional conditions surrounding a system, including who owns the infrastructure, controls its use, and bears responsibility for its consequences. Third, favorable evaluation cannot by itself establish respect for human dignity or moral and political legitimacy. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what the evidence supports under specified conditions, from measurement-bounded governance, which identifies constraints that favorable results cannot override. We outline a proposed RISE AI framework for applying these propositions across Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment.

The evolution towards autonomous and AI-native telecommunication networks is transforming network control from predefined automation towards distributed and intelligent decision-making. Advances in closed-loop automation, O-RAN, Network Digital Twins, AI-driven orchestration, and autonomous agents enable multiple specialized control functions to operate concurrently across network domains and timescales. This introduces a system-level assurance challenge: individually acceptable decisions may interact through shared resources and network state, while changes in their operational context may invalidate assumptions under which they were evaluated. This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of AI-native network control, focusing on the composition and runtime assurance of autonomous control loops. It examines closed-loop and zero-touch automation, intelligent controllers, Network Digital Twins, AI-driven orchestration, autonomous agents, trustworthy AI, and runtime assurance. The analysis shows that these directions provide important foundations for autonomous operation but lack a unified mechanism for assuring heterogeneous control loops whose decisions depend on shared and dynamically changing network state. To address this gap, the paper identifies dependency-aware runtime assurance as a research direction for assured composition of AI-native network control loops. The proposed perspective associates decisions with assumptions and dependencies on which their validity relies, monitors changes that may invalidate accepted decisions, and supports runtime resolution of concurrent control interactions. A telecom use case and an initial architecture and formal model illustrate the concept and identify open challenges in dependency representation, runtime validation, conflict resolution, latency-aware assurance, and experimental evaluation.

Large language model (LLM)-powered agents can be accurate on average yet unreliable in production, a discrepancy that has been observed but remains largely unaddressed. When given the same task five times, a ReAct agent on the AppWorld benchmark using GPT-4.1 succeeds in all five runs only 53% of the time, even though its per-run pass rate averages 77%. We call this 24-point shortfall the consistency gap, and we argue that addressing it is a precondition for trustworthy AI agent deployment. We present a self-evolving agent framework that reduces this gap by identifying unstable, low-consistency steps in agent trajectories and converting them into episodic memory the agent can draw on in future runs. At its core is a Consistency Analyzer that pinpoints where and why a trajectory is likely to flip across executions, and a Guideline Generator that converts the diagnosis into targeted guidelines, committed to memory and injected into future agent executions on similar tasks. On AppWorld with ReAct/GPT-4.1, our framework raises the fraction of tasks that succeed in all five runs by +16 points on same-task evaluation and +13 points on similar-task generalization.

Brain-age prediction models are commonly evaluated by predictive accuracy, yet accurate predictions alone do not establish that a model relies on reproducible or neurobiologically supported mechanisms. Post-hoc explanation methods can expose these mechanisms, but existing workflows typically stop at diagnosis or require correction targets to be specified before model analysis. We propose XAI-Refine, an automated explanation-knowledge loop for brain-age prediction from resting-state functional connectivity. At each iteration, XAI-Refine consolidates complementary post-hoc analyses across repeated training runs into reliable, structured model explanations. It converts each reliable explanation into a neutral neurobiological question, retrieves and verifies relevant literature, and compiles the verified evidence into an admissible set in the same typed explanation space. The target for refinement is defined as the minimal projection of the current model explanation onto the admissible set induced by applicable verified knowledge. This revised explanation is then translated into a differentiable constraint while preserving the originating model variable, measurement operator, and applicable scope. Candidate updates are promoted only when multi-seed validation confirms target-directed explanatory movement, predictive performance remains within a prespecified guardrail, and non-target explanatory drift remains bounded. Experiments on functional-connectivity-based brain-age prediction evaluate predictive performance, explanation reliability, literature alignment, and target-specific model revision, illustrating a structured route from post-hoc analysis to evidence-guided model refinement.

We observe a phenomenon that current algorithmic research in the field of explainable artificial intelligence primarily pursues better performance on several proxy metrics. On the one hand, these proxy metrics themselves are more or less flawed and cannot properly measure the quality of methods. On the other hand, metric-oriented research approaches often lead to the neglect of the rationality and interpretability of the methods themselves. Explainable artificial intelligence is abbreviated as XAI. The metric-driven research paradigm has resulted in a lack of interpretability of the relevant XAI methods themselves. Accordingly, there is a need for interpretability research on XAI methods, which can be playfully referred to as XXAI. This paper is one of our works on XXAI. This paper takes Generic Attention-model Explainability (GAE), a widely influential model interpretation method , or rather, XAI method that represents an important technical route, as the research object, and explores the real working mechanism and flaws of this method as well as the technical route it represents. Based on the conclusions of this study, it may be necessary to re-examine or verify GAE-related methods and their domain applications. We argue that GAE is an interpretation method that focuses on the attention process. After pointing out the working mechanism and flaws of GAE, we propose Cumulative Asset Holdings (CAH), a more reasonable Transformer interpretation method integrating both process-based and feature-based ideas from an economic zero-sum games perspective. In addition, it is worth noting that our method is applicable to models with special tokens, where existing methods may suffer from limitations. The model simplification research method and the analysis of additive operations adopted in this study may provide inspiration for other research works in XAI.

Post-hoc explanation methods are widely used to inspect image classifiers, but their reliability depends on design choices that are often treated as implementation details. We study this issue for LIME on document image classification, focusing on the segmentation step that defines the interpretable units being perturbed. Standard image-based LIME typically relies on natural-image superpixels, which are poorly aligned with document structure such as text regions, layout blocks, and identification codes. Using RVL-CDIP, we compare Quickshift and SLIC with document-aware segmentations based on OCR bounding boxes and regular grids. Our results show that segmentation strongly affects explanation consistency, correctness, and local fidelity. Document-aware segmentations produce more stable and faithful explanations, require fewer perturbations to converge, and expose shortcut behaviour based on document identification codes, a known RVL-CDIP bias that superpixel-based LIME often obscures. These findings show that reliable post-hoc explanation requires domain-aware interpretable representations, and that segmentation should be treated as part of the explanation method rather than as neutral preprocessing.

Deep learning has achieved state-of-the-art performance in echocardiographic video segmentation, with an increasing number of models incorporating temporal information. However, quantitative evaluation of temporal explainability remains largely unexplored. We propose a quantitative framework for evaluating Grad-CAM explanations using four complementary metrics measuring temporal consistency, saliency motion, anatomical overlap, and temporal overlap. Using EchoNet-Dynamic, we compare a baseline 2D U-Net with ConvLSTM U-Net models trained across multiple temporal strides. While segmentation performance remained comparable across all models, intermediate ConvLSTM explanations exhibited substantially lower saliency consistency and greater centroid motion than final prediction explanations. Temporal Bottleneck explanations were significantly more stable than Encoder Bottleneck explanations across all strides, while final ConvLSTM Decoder3 explanations were broadly comparable to those of the 2D U-Net. Importantly, conventional frame-wise explanation metrics cannot determine whether variation in intermediate explanations reflects meaningful temporal feature evolution or explanation instability. These findings establish a preliminary quantitative framework for temporal explainability and motivate temporal-aware XAI methods that explicitly account for evolving representations in medical video models.

This paper interrogates the political and philosophical stakes of AI through the lens of cyborg theory cosmotechnics and glitch feminism. It advocates for a tech-positive critically situated approach to AI as a collaborator and substrate for power relations rather than an autonomous agent of harm. By rejecting the naive pause stop narratives of the human AI binary and embracing an explainable AI XAI artistic practice within embodied intersectional and community rooted engagements AI can empower diverse voices and foster ethical creativity. It starts by examining a frontier cybersecurity AI situating its framing within AI public anxiety and arguing for a new critical stance on human navigation in an AI world.

Recent studies report that automated red-teaming finds more vulnerabilities, at lower cost, than human red-teaming on standard AI safety benchmarks, and some read this as evidence that human evaluators are becoming dispensable. The comparison measures one thing and the conclusion claims another. A benchmark measures how thoroughly an attacker searches a predefined set of harms, fixed in advance by the developers, and a harm left out of that set is invisible to any attacker working inside it, automated or not. The same blind spot appeared in academic cryptography and in clinical drug trials, where an evaluation that was internally valid stayed silent about the population it was never pointed at. We call the AI-safety version the \emph{threat-model coverage gap}, and find that it persists in a current open-weight model, where harms surface in non-English prompts that English benchmarks miss. Closing it requires evaluators whose deployment context differs from the developers'. The case for those evaluators is methodological, grounded in coverage, and the existing evaluation frame is unlikely to produce them on its own.