Research Papers

Who Are You Explaining To? A Multi-Agent System for Audience-Aware XAI Narratives

Francesco Musicco, Danilo Danese, Giuseppe Fasano +3

Feature-attribution methods such as SHAP provide useful evidence about individual model predictions, but their numerical outputs are rarely sufficient for audiences with different expertise, goals, and risks of misinterpretation. In medical AI, the same local explanation must reach patients, clinicians, and data scientists through markedly different forms of communication, and naive verbalization through large language models (LLMs) is prone to weak grounding, conflation of attribution with causal language, and outputs that are persuasive without being faithful to the underlying model evidence. We introduce XstrAI, an audience-aware multi-agent framework that treats local explanations as fixed evidence and structures how it is communicated to each target reader. Each prediction case is encoded as an immutable structured representation, shared identically across audiences so the underlying evidence remains fixed. Generation is factored into three specialized LLM agents responsible for audience-aware planning, linguistic realization, and validation for grounding, attribution consistency, communicative risk, and audience appropriateness, with a bounded revision loop triggered on detected inconsistencies. We evaluate XstrAI on diabetes and stroke risk prediction against 11 baselines, ranging from direct verbalization to a re-implementation of a state-of-the-art narrator. The evaluation combines an intra-narrative regime measuring fidelity to SHAP evidence with an extra-narrative regime assessing audience appropriateness through reference corpora, multi-family LLM judges, and a survey with target readers. In both evaluations, XstrAI's narratives are consistently assigned to their intended audience by independent judges, and preferred over all baselines on Clinician and Patient audiences, with competitive performance on Data Scientist, where audience-conditioned single-prompt baselines lead.

Humans are increasingly expected to interact with AI systems that observe and make inferences about them - but do these systems actually work? A standard approach to answering this question is AI auditing. Conducting an AI audit requires identifying how a system behaves (i.e., determining what types of inputs to audit it with and then observing and documenting actual system behavior) and contrasting that with how a system should behave (i.e., determining what the nominal outputs of a system should look like). We argue that this is best done through a contextual audit, which we introduce as a method for auditing measurements within the context of the practices that produce them. We show how contextual auditing enables the interrogation of assumptions implicit in the audit process and allows auditors to be explicit about what serves as ground truth, which we define as verifiable measurements about the real world against which systems are evaluated. We outline how the concept of symmetry from science and technology studies can enable audits when ground truth is unknown, unknowable, or contested. Finally, to demonstrate how contextual and symmetric audits can be conducted in practice, we present a case study of skeleton inference in motion capture and propose areas suggested by our case study as particularly fruitful for future audits of motion capture systems.

Context: Fairness debt arises from AI development shortcomings that may lead to societal harms. While technical and social debt concern software design decisions and team dynamics, respectively, fairness debt captures the long-term consequences of development decisions that may reinforce bias and inequities in AI-based software systems. Despite growing attention to AI fairness, limited evidence exists on how practitioners recognize potential sources of fairness debt during development. Aim: This study investigates the indicators practitioners recognize as signaling potential sources of fairness debt in AI-based software projects. Method: We conducted an exploratory case study of four AI projects within one organization. Data were collected from 25 professionals through semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires, complemented by observation of internal communication channels and project documentation, and analyzed using iterative qualitative coding, memoing, and constant comparison. Results: We identified six recurring indicators, termed bias smells: Context Oversimplification, Dataset Imbalance, Metrics Inadequacies, Ad hoc Testing, Individual Diversity Unawareness, and Homogeneous Team Composition. These smells span technical and human aspects of software development and signal conditions that may introduce or reinforce bias and contribute to fairness debt. Conclusion: Bias smells extend the software smell paradigm to fairness and provide a foundation for incorporating fairness into software quality assurance through observable indicators.

Logics of abstraction in computational AI research often push important forms of knowledge and reflection aside: dominant standards of legitimacy separate from lived experience of harm; the goals of work misalign with the practices that operationalize them; and career demands crowd out critical reflection. Even as prior academic and community-oriented efforts have sought to recontextualize and challenge common practices, exposure to sociotechnical harms and epistemic injustice persists. As three early-career critical AI researchers, we experienced this as alienation: feeling like outsiders in our research communities. This alienation has involved having some aspects of our backgrounds overlooked and others tokenized. We argue our alienation occurred through mechanisms that mirror abstraction by creating distance from relevant material realities. Beyond abstraction's role in computational AI research as a foundational practice structuring complex computational tasks, we have encountered it as a social norm in computational research spaces, illustrated through an autoethnographic inquiry into our alienation. We narrate three vignettes describing how we encountered and resisted alienation in our research communities. By analyzing themes across these accounts, we construct an interpretive framework of alienation categorizing its preconditions, mechanisms, and harms. Finally, we identify affect abstraction, one of the mechanisms of alienation we describe, as a high-leverage mechanism that is resistible by staying attuned to our affective responses, and collective action as a way to reduce risk and isolation when engaging in resistance. To assist others with similar reflection, we present our framework as a hermeneutic resource. Critical self-reflection and meaning-making are necessary steps toward challenging exclusionary disciplinary norms and cultivating more inclusive forms of AI research.

The Internet of Things (IoT) increasingly combines sensing, communication, artificial intelligence (AI), decision-making, and actuation. In many domains, sensor observations are processed by edge or cloud intelligence to select actions that configure or control actuators; where actuation changes the environment, later observations may also be affected. Existing explainable AI (XAI) methods can explain model predictions, but they do not by themselves explain the end-to-end path from sensed evidence to physical action. This paper introduces the Internet of Explainable Things (IoXT), a system-level paradigm that makes explainability an architectural property of intelligent IoT. Its novelty is explainability-by-design across the sensing-communication-intelligence-decision-actuation path. IoXT derives requirements and design principles for identity and addressability, temporal fidelity, cross-layer provenance, bidirectional traceability, streaming and incident-time evidence, protocol-semantic continuity, security and privacy, lifecycle continuity, and conformance. We formalize timestamped provenance graphs, sensor participation, trace completeness, cross-layer coverage, reconstruction latency, and No Orphan Actuation: a consequential action must remain traceable to the authorizing decision and source evidence, or be explicitly marked degraded or non-conformant. IoXT prescribes neither a particular XAI method nor a wire protocol. Instead, it defines the conditions under which model explanations remain connected to real sensor inputs, communication history, decisions, actuator execution, and outcomes. Explainability Telemetry Protocols (XTPs) are introduced as a protocol category for preserving these semantics across heterogeneous IoT systems, together with IoXT-ready and IoXT-conformant assurance concepts.

PROSLEX: A Novel Dataset for Expert-Annotated Legal Statute Prediction for Indian Judiciary

Subinay Adhikary, Upal Bhattacharya, Vivek Kumar Singh +6

Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research. While recent advances have begun incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs) for statute prediction, current approaches primarily focus on accuracy metrics without addressing the critical need for legal reasoning, a fundamental requirement in judicial contexts where decisions must be explainable and justifiable. To address this research gap, we present PROSLEX (PRediction Of Statutes and LEgal eXplanation), a comprehensive dataset comprising 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents from the Indian context. Each document is paired with statute predictions and detailed explanations, totaling 7,450 explanations, capturing the underlying legal reasoning. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thoughts approaches, to generate both statute predictions and their corresponding legal rationales. Our evaluation framework measures not only predictive performance but also the coherence and legal validity of generated explanations, positioning PROSLEX as a benchmark for developing explainable AI systems that can support legal practitioners while advancing research in interpretable legal NLP. To ensure reproducibility, we have made our PROSLEX dataset and model code available on GitHub: https://github.com/subinay494/Legal_Statute_Prediction_Explanation.

As the foundation of contemporary AI systems, the semiconductor industry is increasingly shaped by critical social, environmental, and geopolitical challenges. Nonetheless, prior research has often examined these issues in isolation and within disciplinary silos, leaving a gap in understanding them through an integrative socio-technical, cross-disciplinary lens. To address this gap, we conducted a participatory futuring workshop with experts from academia, industry, and policy. The results of our analysis show that the aforementioned challenges are highly interdependent, and participants envisioned interconnected socio-technical pathways linking present frictions to normative goals. Drawing from their perspectives, we highlight three central tensions: the sovereignty--sustainability tension, where national protectionism undermines ecological survival; supply chain opacity, which obscures accountability for labor and environmental harms; and a growing knowledge divide that risks excluding smaller economies from shaping the AI future. Participants envisioned futures centered on interdependence and inclusive access, proposing measures such as a standardized emissions labeling system to translate technical data into public accountability. They also suggested frameworks for strategic interdependence to balance local resilience with global cooperation, and epistemic redistribution initiatives to lower barriers of entry and democratize access to hardware infrastructure. We argue that considerations of AI ethics must extend beyond models and data to encompass the hardware infrastructures on which they depend, and that embedding stakeholder reflection is critical for anticipatory governance in the physical infrastructure of AI.

Beyond "I Can't Help With That": How Child Safety Experts Evaluate AI Chatbot Safety

Hannah Cha, Neha Shukla, Solon Barocas +3

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in music has expanded research from generation and information retrieval to education, health, and governance. Yet this growth does not necessarily imply balanced research attention. Where is research attention directed across diverse music tasks, and how can such imbalance be systematically measured? Existing studies examine AI music from separate technical, application-specific, or bibliometric perspectives, but lack a systematic framework for measuring field-level imbalance. To address this gap, we analyze 6,839 AI music publications from 2015 to April 2026 using a joint taxonomy of 12 application categories and 11 technical method families. We propose the Research Attention Profile, comprising four indicators of technical investment, method allocation, methodological diversity, and frontier-method adoption lag. Results show that technical support is concentrated in scalable, content-oriented tasks, while education, health, and governance remain under-supported. Generation adopts frontier methods after only 0.33 years on average, compared with 4.33 years for education and 5.00 years for health. These findings reveal uneven methodological development and support a more socially responsive AI music research agenda.

We propose Zero-phase Component Analysis (ZCA) whitening as a geometric pre-processing step for the Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT). WEAT is a bias measurement method widely used in both computational social science and AI fairness research. It relies on cosine similarity as a measure of semantic association, which assumes that the embedding space is approximately isotropic. However, prior work has reported that many widely used language models do not satisfy this assumption, raising concerns about the reliability of bias measurements. ZCA whitening transforms the covariance of the embedding space into the identity matrix while minimizing perturbation to the original vectors. This transformation restores the isotropy condition on which WEAT relies. We evaluate our approach on ten standard WEAT test suites and seven models spanning three architectural families, yielding 70 model-task combinations. The results show that ZCA whitening substantially reduces the anisotropy of the embedding spaces across all models. Particularly for highly anisotropic models, we further observe improvements on standard semantic similarity benchmarks, indicating that the calibrated space better captures semantic associations. After calibration, over 30% of WEAT results change significance status, and effect sizes shift in both directions depending on bias category. These shifts suggest that uncalibrated measurements may both overestimate and underestimate the associations encoded in the embedding space. These findings indicate that previously reported bias measurements in anisotropic embedding spaces should be interpreted with caution and may benefit from re-evaluation with calibrated methods. Our approach contributes to restoring the measurement foundation of WEAT across both computational social science and AI fairness research.

Edge Artificial Intelligence (Edge AI) enables the deployment of AI models directly on local edge devices, while such deployments are subject to strict resource constraints, particularly in clinical applications requiring local and timely inference. In such contexts, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) can serve as a human-AI interface intended to support healthcare professionals' and patients' understanding of model predictions and informed decision-making. To fulfill this role, XAI method selection for TinyML deployments can be formulated as a human-centered multi-objective design problem that jointly considers qualitative stakeholder preferences, explanation quality, and proxy-based deployment cost. We propose a framework that integrates a large language model (LLM)-guided design interface that maps qualitative stakeholder preferences to candidate XAI methods, followed by deterministic feasibility filtering and Pareto-based optimization. The framework exposes trade-offs among explanation fidelity, stability, and proxy-based deployment cost while characterizing their implications for explanation quality and estimated deployment feasibility. A proof-of-concept evaluation on a skin lesion classification task illustrates how the framework systematically compares candidate XAI methods and identifies Pareto-efficient trade-offs. The present evaluation covers the computational selection stages, while physical MCU deployment and empirical human-expert validation remain outside the scope of this study.

Modern AI systems depend on annotated data, but annotation is rarely treated as the act of measurement that it is. Instead, annotation quality is commonly reduced to agreement: if multiple annotators assign the same annotation to a data instance, the annotations are taken to be high-quality. Yet agreement does not establish whether annotations validly capture the underlying concept they are meant to represent. In this paper, we argue that data annotation should be understood as a measurement problem. Like other forms of measurement, annotation requires defining a concept, operationalizing it through an instrument, applying that instrument, and evaluating the reliability and validity of the resulting measurements. Drawing on a literature review of annotation quality research (N=132) and semi-structured interviews with annotation team members (N=10), we develop a framework for diagnosing and correcting annotation issues. First, we map key decision points across annotation processes - including task design, annotator management, quality assessment, quality improvement, and adjudication - that shape annotation outcomes. Second, we identify five distinct sources of annotation issues: error, ambiguity, impossibility, subjectivity, and annotator identity. Annotation problems that appear similar at the level of outcomes often require different process-level interventions based on their sources. Finally, we translate measurement theory into practical guidance for annotation teams, showing how assessments of reliability and validity can move beyond agreement alone. By reframing annotation as measurement, we offer a conceptual foundation for improving the quality of annotated data used in AI research and practice.