Research Papers

FST.ai 2.5: Explainable and Uncertainty-Aware AI for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo Decision Support, Athlete Digital Twins, and Federation-Scale Analytics

Keivan Shariatmadar, Ahmad Osman, Ramin Rey

The rapid digitalisation of elite sport has created new opportunities for integrating artificial intelligence (AI), performance analytics, and decision-support systems into athlete development and competition management. However, existing solutions remain fragmented, typically addressing isolated tasks such as performance analysis, athlete monitoring, or referee support. This paper presents \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5}, an explainable, uncertainty-aware, and secure AI framework for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo. \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5} introduces a unified digital ecosystem integrating athlete intelligence, competition analytics, federation-scale data management, AI-assisted decision support, athlete and event digital twins, explainable performance indicators, and adaptive training recommendations. The framework supports World Taekwondo (WT), Member National Associations (MNAs), coaches, referees, analysts, and athletes through transparent, secure, and federation-aware governance. By combining multi-source competition data, athlete-performance information, and contextual evidence, \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5} provides tactical diagnostics, longitudinal athlete monitoring, performance forecasting, personalised development planning, and federation-wide benchmarking using explainable and uncertainty-aware AI. Prototype deployments demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed framework. Although developed for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo, the methodology is broadly applicable to explainable AI, digital twins, and trustworthy decision support in combat sports and other high-performance sporting environments.

A Method for Learning Value Systems in Generative AI

Andrés Holgado-Sánchez, Holger Billhardt, Sascha Ossowski

Value-aware AI systems require explicit computational representations of human values (groundings) and their aggregation into value systems in order to align their decisions with ours. As such representations are difficult to elicit, value learning seeks to infer them by observing human behaviour. This work addresses the lack of grounded value learning methods in generative AI: existing approaches typically replicate human preferences without awareness of the multidimensional structure of value alignment, or lack principled value system elicitation methods. To address these gaps, we adapt a previously validated value system learning method to the generative AI setting, which, based on pairwise prompt-response preference data, simultaneously learns: i) an implementation of a grounding for a set of values given by a multi-objective reward model, and ii) a value system representation in the form of a weighted linear scalarization of the previous grounding model. To ensure that the learned value systems are based on coherent value representations, our algorithm dynamically prioritizes the grounding learning process. We evaluate the method against baselines and a contemporary method on prompt-response preference datasets. Results show competitive performance and minimal trade-offs against the baselines, while improving explainability.

Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness. Firms that invest seriously in safety, fairness, and oversight cannot consistently prove to consumers, regulators, and shareholders that their systems go beyond the bare minimum of compliance. What is missing is a way for society to recognize or compare the difference. The result is a trust gap: a structural condition in which responsible development efforts happen inside organizations but produce no external, independently recognized and verifiable signal of trustworthy outcomes. We argue this gap is sustained in part because of a focus on responsible AI (a matter of internal process) as opposed to trustworthy AI (a matter of independently verifiable real-world outcomes), and that it persists because of three compounding failures: (1) the market cannot distinguish trustworthy systems from their imitations; (2) evaluation targets models and outputs rather than deployed sociotechnical systems and their outcomes; (3) the measurement ecosystem is oriented toward avoiding harm rather than demonstrating benefit. Reviewing existing AI governance instruments and comparing them to certification regimes in healthcare, sustainability, and security, we show that none integrate a governance baseline, independently verified positive-outcome evidence, and market signaling in a single framework. We propose independent, outcome-oriented certification as the connective layer that can close the trust gap, complementing regulation and internal governance by making trustworthiness measurable, comparable, and commercially rewarded.

Governments are increasingly mandating that LLM-generated content carry watermarks. The EU AI Act calls for markings that are "sufficiently reliable and robust." California's SB 942 requires disclosure that is "permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove." Both mandates rest on an untested assumption: that watermark detection yields evidence reliable enough for courts. This paper tests that assumption directly. We evaluate three representative LLM watermarking methods -- KGW, Unigram, and the MarkLLM implementation of SynthID-Text -- against the Daubert admissibility criteria and the NIST SP 800-86 digital forensic process. To structure this evaluation, we propose a Forensic Readiness Score (FRS) framework with 12 criteria, three mandatory gates, and a 60-point scoring system. We focus on meaning-preserving paraphrase as the attack vector, since it is both legally realistic and difficult to dismiss as evidence tampering. The results raise serious evidentiary concerns. Out of 846 valid paraphrase runs across 15 diverse prompts per method, every single initially-detected KGW and Unigram text lost its watermark after paraphrasing -- 100% conditional removal. SynthID fared only slightly better at 98.3%. Even before any attack, false-negative rates were already high: 70% for KGW, 83% for Unigram, 80% for SynthID. The SynthID configuration also flagged 5.4% of paraphrased human-written controls as AI-generated and showed an 18.6% paradox rate, with 80% of its own pristine watermarked output landing in the uncertainty deadband. None of the three methods satisfy more than two of five Daubert factors. We also find that the FRS point-based scoring system, despite working as designed, cannot fully capture forensic uselessness -- a limitation worth noting for future framework design. These configurations, as tested, do not meet the evidentiary bar that courts require.

Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms. GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service. A global network of 135 country-level researchers collected and assessed 68,138 data points on 38 indicators organised across three pillars: government AI policy and implementation (17 indicators), civil society engagement (5), enabling conditions (15), and documented cases of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems. The data covers November 2023 to September 2025. A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries. Findings show that while responsible AI governance is expanding, with 126 of 135 countries having at least one government policy or initiative across the 17 AI Policy indicators, this does not often translate into meaningful protection. For instance, Global South countries account for 203 of 306 new cases of indicators with frameworks since the first edition, yet 78% of their frameworks remain non-binding compared with 42% in the Global North. Government commitment to AI governance also does not extend to their own algorithms: whereas Transparency and Explainability is one of the strongest performing indicators, with 58% of countries having some framework, only 18% require Public Disclosure of Government Algorithms. Credible evidence of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems was also found in 35 countries. These findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress.

Most medical AI benchmarks measure whether a model knows the correct answer. MedFailBench asks a different question: which safety boundary failed? We present a synthetic benchmark and failure atlas built by a clinician. The resource labels medical AI errors by severity from 1 to 5 and safety gate type: missed urgent escalation, unsafe remote dosing, unsafe discharge reassurance, evidence fabrication, unsafe protocol execution, and source support gap. The current public release (v0.2.1) contains 44 synthetic cases reviewed by a clinician, with severity annotations, a public Hugging Face Space source, a safety gate taxonomy, a clinical severity rubric, and an automated pipeline for archiving model response screening runs. Forty cases have a populated safety gate field, and four require gate completion. No patient data, clinical validation claims, or model rankings are included. MedFailBench is released under Apache-2.0 and CC-BY-4.0 and carries the Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21205535.

Compact medical-image classifiers need efficiency and interpretable evidence, yet these goals are often addressed separately. We introduce qZACH-ViT, a quantization-aware extension of the zero-token (CLS-token-free), position-free ZACH-ViT backbone with recursive intrinsic patch-level class evidence. We also introduce Recursive Attribution-Stabilized Optimization (RASO), which norm-matches classification and attribution gradients and removes attribution components that conflict with classification. We evaluate four controlled conditions on seven MedMNIST datasets using 50 training images per class and ten fixed seeds, completing 280 runs. All 210 qZACH-ViT checkpoints are converted to executable mixed-precision ONNX INT8 graphs containing 16 signed INT8 MatMulInteger projections with INT32 accumulation. Deployed mixed-precision INT8 qZACH-ViT with Adam improves the FP32 ZACH-ViT baseline mean on all seven datasets, with a mean paired gain of 0.0313 in the dataset-specific primary metric; qZACH-ViT with RASO yields a mean gain of 0.0368. Across 964,920 source-to-INT8 test comparisons, prediction agreement is 99.9751\%, with a mean absolute primary-metric change of 0.000133 and a maximum of 0.004386. Across 3,600 matched intrinsic maps, mean cosine similarity is 0.999955, mean rank correlation is 0.9944, and mean top-10\% overlap is 0.9692. ONNX artifacts are 70.0\% smaller than source checkpoints and provide $1.41\times$ and $2.39\times$ end-to-end CPU speedups with one and four threads. RASO significantly reduces sufficiency error and improves input-noise stability over Adam with the same attribution loss, but does not dominate every predictive or explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) metric. These results establish qZACH-ViT as a deployable compact intrinsically explainable model and RASO as a targeted stability-oriented optimization procedure.

This report presents the methodology of the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI), 2nd Edition. This edition refines the 1st Edition by strengthening the distinction between framework existence and implementation, restructuring dimensions from three to five thematic areas, introducing more granular variables for framework quality, and applying a multi-stage review and validation process. An independent statistical pre-audit was conducted to assess the coherence and robustness of the framework. GIRAI assesses responsible AI governance across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and Use of AI in Public Service. Each dimension has a number of indicators (38 in total), organised into three pillars, namely AI Policy (17 indicators on government frameworks and implementation, assessed through primary data), CSO Engagement (5 indicators, primary data), and Enabling Conditions (15 indicators on the structural factors shaping responsible AI governance, assessed through secondary data), and a government Use of Unacceptable Risk AI (URAI) indicator (primary data), applied separately as an accountability penalty to the final score. Data was collected by 135 country-level researchers through a structured global survey, complemented by secondary datasets. The count, scope, enforceability, thematic coverage, and implementation levels of the data points are coded into numerical variables, normalised to a scale of 100, aggregated through pillar weights of 60% (AI policy), 10% (CSO Engagement), and 30% (Enabling conditions). A deduction penalty is applied for countries with evidence of URAI. This documentation enables systematic cross-national comparison, supporting policymakers, civil society, and AI developers to identify where commitments are translating into enforceable protections and where critical gaps remain.

The banking sector increasingly relies on automated systems to monitor electronic transactions for signs of fraud, yet conventional rule-based approaches struggle with high false-positive rates and offer no justification for their outputs, limiting their utility for compliance teams. This paper introduces an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) framework tailored for banking transaction anomaly detection within internal audit workflows. An Isolation Forest (iForest) model performs unsupervised anomaly scoring, while a SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) layer provides transaction-level, feature-attributed explanations grounded in cooperative game theory [8]. A lightweight Streamlit dashboard renders these outputs in a form accessible to audit professionals without machine learning expertise. Evaluation on a synthetic banking dataset yields 0.91 precision and 0.88 recall, outperforming three unsupervised baselines. Expert feedback confirms that feature-level explanations measurably improve auditor confidence and decision quality. The framework advances the practical deployment of accountable, transparent AI in regulated financial environments.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in agricultural decision-support settings, yet high-stakes crop protection in smallholder agriculture requires more than output-quality benchmarks. Over a two-year design and evaluation programme, we formalise policy-constrained large language model assessment as an adaptive compute allocation problem that jointly captures safety compliance, helpfulness, operational latency, and expert supervision workload. We introduce P-EVAL (Policy-grounded Expert-calibrated VALidation protocol), a unified evaluation framework for policy-grounded decision support, evaluating the architecture on a simulated field query database consisting of 1,240 cases. The protocol is instantiated on the Pezego advisory architecture (Pezego-HITL) and evaluated in Ghana. Following offline judge calibration against gold-standard human expert decisions ($κ= 0.77$), we evaluate the architectural performance under simulated query workloads. Under P-EVAL, our memory-routed architecture improves the Policy Alignment Rate (PAR) to 0.94 and the Agronomic Utility Rate (AUR) to 0.95, while reducing P95 latency by 55% (from 28.6s to 12.9s) through a 59.6% cache reuse ratio. We also demonstrate generalisability using the open-source \texttt{Qwen3.5-9B-DeepSeek-V4-Flash} model, achieving a PAR of 0.86 and a 54.5% latency reduction (to 10.2s). To evaluate practical utility and socio-technical integration, we administer detailed questionnaires to Ghanaian Extension Services Officers ($N=30$) and smallholder farmers ($N=36$). Taken together, this work demonstrates how policy-grounded structured retrieval-augmented generation with validated-memory routing makes safety-utility-latency trade-offs explicit, offering a scalable template for trustworthy AI-driven extension in smallholder farming systems.

As automated decision-making and data-driven technologies pervade society and are used to manage consequential outcomes, understanding the technology's capabilities, limitations, and attendant risks in context requires analysis of full sociotechnical systems. Sociotechnical analysis of risks in highly complex systems provides clear lessons for the design and evaluation of AI systems, transcending a technical focus on reliable or "responsibly designed" components to understand risks at a systems level. Human-made catastrophes have been studied for decades because of the severity of these events: consider Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima-Daiichi, Bhopal, the Challenger disaster. A common misconception is that these kinds of events are freak accidents, resulting from the inherently unforeseeable interactions in complex systems. Closer examination reveals that the risks and hazards were well-known beforehand but not acted upon due to social structural, political and economic factors. We outline several areas where the development and use of AI can benefit from learning these unlearned lessons: improved risk perception, communication, and analysis at the organizational level; traceability of requirements and responsibilities; and holistic approaches to responsibility and safety that include social and organizational dynamics as first-order engineering concerns. For each area, we offer concrete unlearned lessons and exemplify how they led to failure in prior accidents as well as examples of how these lessons remain unlearned for modern computing systems, particularly AI.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (GenAI) into education presents significant opportunities to enhance teaching and learning, while raising ethical concerns about the responsible use of these technologies in educational settings. Understanding how the public perceives and debates these issues is increasingly important for educators, institutions, and policymakers seeking to integrate AI responsibly and equitably. Social media platforms, where such debates unfold frequently and at scale, offer a valuable lens for capturing large-scale, real-time public reactions to key developments as they emerge. In this study, we analyse five years (2019-2024) of discourse on Twitter (now X) to trace the evolving public conversation around AI ethics in education, paying particular attention to the release of ChatGPT as a pivotal moment that reshaped the nature and tone of that discourse. Using BERT-based topic modelling and SetFit sentiment analysis to identify dominant themes and track sentiment over time, we find that the discourse has been predominantly positive across the observation period, with negative sentiment concentrated around specific ethical controversies. More recently, anxieties about academic integrity and the broader implications of generative AI have come to dominate the conversation. Rather than reflecting a polarized debate, public discourse appears pragmatic and largely receptive to AI integration, though accompanied by growing calls for ethical oversight and institutional accountability. By providing a longitudinal account of public sentiment surrounding AI ethics in education, this study informs educators, institutions, and policymakers an empirically grounded understanding of public expectations, informing the development of responsible, transparent, and equitable approaches to AI integration across educational contexts.