Research Papers

Estimating the economic contribution of a single patent inside a product that embodies tens of thousands of patents is a long-standing unsolved problem in intellectual property economics. We propose PatentXAI, a framework that treats patent valuation as a problem of explainable AI: given a characteristic function v(S) encoding the revenue achievable by patent subset S, a patent's Shapley value measures its fair share of product profit in a way that satisfies efficiency, symmetry, dummy, and additivity. To make computation tractable we restrict each patent's coalition to its Markov Blanket inside a knowledge graph, grounded in the C-SVE conditional independence theorem (Li et al., 2020). Scaling experiments from n=12 to n=100 patents using Pareto-distributed coverage graphs report median Markov Blanket size of 32.9 percent of n at n=100, with 90th-percentile blanket size of 55.2 percent of n, and runtime of 10 milliseconds per patent. Difference against exact ground truth at n=12 is 0.088; difference against a high-sample Monte Carlo reference at n=100 is 0.062 plus or minus 0.003. A dense-component experiment shows that when 80 percent of patents share one component, the blanket correctly expands to cover that dense cluster, and the difference versus reference falls to 0.039 because the pooled computation becomes more accurate on homogeneous portfolios. Profit allocation proceeds hierarchically: exact Shapley distributes total profit among macro-components, then centrality-weighted Shapley distributes each component budget among covering patents. Estimating v(S) from real data is the primary open problem; we distinguish this from the computational contribution and outline a concrete roadmap for empirical validation using public ETSI, USPTO, and Lens.org datasets.

Algorithm registers are public-facing databases that display basic information about algorithms employed in public administration. While several such registers exist across Europe and globally, their capacity to deliver meaningful transparency remains contested. In Germany, the landscape is notably fragmented: no federal-level register exists, yet at least five state- and federal-level initiatives publish information about AI systems with varying scopes and objectives. A recent conceptual proposal by Alina Lorenz (2025), outlines technical and governance requirements for a national AI transparency register in Germany. We repurpose this proposal as an audit instrument, extracting structured checklists from the transparency goals and subgoals it formulates. The resulting checklists, translated from German into English, is made publicly available to support practitioners auditing existing registers or designing new ones. We apply this framework to conduct an external audit of the two main existing German transparency initiatives, Marktplatz der KI-Möglichkeiten and Platform Lernende Systeme, evaluating the extent to which they fulfill the proposed goals. Our audit reveals that several adaptations are likely needed for these registers to serve as an useful transparency instrument. We further propose a visualization of register transparency levels and derive concrete action items for improving existing German platforms.

We present a systematic study of domain-dependent safety behavior in open-weight LLMs: 7 standardized experiments across 7 ethical domains, testing 5 models (12B--70B) in 4,200 interactions with dual-judge validation. Using a dual-condition methodology, each scenario tested in both an analytical framing (identify the harm) and an operational framing (help commit the harm), we find compliance rates vary from 14.7% (human trafficking) to 85.7% (surveillance design), a 71-percentage-point span with non-overlapping cluster-bootstrapped 95% CIs. Trustworthy deployment requires predictable safety behavior, yet we find compliance is highly context-dependent: the same model (Mistral Nemo 12B) provides surveillance designs in 100% of requests but assists with trafficking in only 26.7%. This unpredictability is opaque to deployers: the technical framing bypass, where harmful requests reframed as engineering problems override safety training without any external signal that refusal thresholds have shifted. Within-domain heterogeneity reaches 84.4pp, meaning safety behavior cannot be predicted even at the domain level. A replication on five frontier closed models (GPT-4.1/5.2, Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus 4.x; n=4,163 responses) accessed via the GitHub Copilot CLI deployed-product surface reproduces the same domain stratification, attenuated in absolute level but identical in shape, with the two low-codification domains (science fraud, surveillance) again the most permissive. These results show that current safety mechanisms lack the transparency and consistency required for trustworthy AI deployment.

Position: AI Governance Needs ISO-like Interoperability Protocols, Not Just Laws

Azmine Toushik Wasi, Mst Rafia Islam, Mahfuz Ahmed Anik +3

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems become deeply integrated into critical global infrastructure, the urgency for robust governance frameworks has intensified. However, current approaches, led by jurisdiction-specific laws, policies, and voluntary frameworks such as the EU AI Act, China's algorithm governance, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework in the U.S., create a fragmented regulatory landscape. In this position paper, we argue that \textbf{\textit{AI governance must be built not on laws alone, but on ISO-like interoperability protocols that enable standardized, machine-readable risk communication across borders}}. Drawing on the success of the GDPR, which was operationalized through standards like ISO 27001 and Privacy by Design, we propose the development of standardized AI \textit{nutrition labels} containing unified metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to facilitate cross-jurisdictional compliance. These manifests would lower barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), reduce redundant regulatory efforts, and build public trust. The paper addresses concerns that standards may stifle innovation by advocating for modular, versioned protocols designed to evolve in tandem with technological change. Overall, we call for a shift from siloed legal compliance toward interoperable technical conformance, enabling a shared global language for responsible AI deployment.

Rising household debt and cost-of-living pressures in the United Kingdom have intensified the role of AI-driven financial technologies in mediating credit assessment, repayment structuring, and debt support services. These systems increasingly shape consequential financial decisions, yet they operate within complex socio-technical environments characterised by regulatory constraint, algorithmic opacity, and heightened vulnerability risk. User Experience Research (UXR) Points of View (PoVs) are critical in translating heterogeneous research evidence into strategic direction for product and governance decisions. However, the existing UXR PoV framework was not designed for AI-mediated financial systems where interpretability, fairness, and accountability are central. This paper extends the UXR PoV pyramid into an AI-augmented methodological framework for Human-Centred AI debt management technologies in the UK financial services context. We formalise (1) an AI-Augmented PoV Pyramid, (2) a structured prompt architecture for synthesis and hypothesis generation, and (3) an AI-enabled Playbook Card system that embeds Generative AI into UXR workflows while preserving traceability and ethical oversight. Generative AI is positioned not as an analytic authority, but as an epistemic support mechanism subject to human validation and regulatory awareness. By grounding the framework in debt management technologies, including affordability assessment, repayment planning, and financial stress prediction systems, this work advances UXR methodology for high-stakes financial AI environments and contributes to the evolution of responsible, AI-powered UXR practice within the CHI community.

Assessing whether Large Language Models outputs are factually grounded, epistemically calibrated, and methodologically reproducible is a prerequisite for responsible AI deployment. Yet auditing LLMs remains inaccessible to non-technical practitioners: existing tools require programming expertise and non-trivial environment setup, and cloud-hosted platforms transmit evaluation data to external services, creating barriers for domain experts and compliance officers legally responsible for AI oversight. We introduce LLM-FACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture, structured around three practitioner profiles (technical experts, domain experts, compliance officers) that mirror the stakeholder categories identified in the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The architecture makes data flows explicit: deterministic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore) run entirely within the self-hosted server with no outbound transmission; LLM-judge metrics contact external APIs explicitly, with users retaining full credential control. The framework operationalizes transparency through three mechanisms: token-level log-probability visualization for epistemic uncertainty, multi-judge consensus to mitigate judge bias, and RAG Triad metrics (Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Relevance) to detect and localize hallucinations. A plugin architecture allows any new metric or dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline. The open-source implementation enables cross-checking across multiple metrics targeting the same property, ensuring reproducibility and decoupling AI accountability from the teams building the systems assessed. We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.

Isolating LLM Lexical Bias: A Curation-Free Triangulated Metric for Preference-Stage Learning

Xiaoyang Ming, Jose Hernandez, Thomas Stephan Juzek

Various language domains have undergone remarkable changes in recent years; these shifts are largely attributed to the advent of Large Language Models and their misalignment with natural language usage. These misalignments are thought to partly originate in the preference-learning stage, e.g. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, which generally makes models more useful but simultaneously may introduce systematic lexical bias. In terms of lexical behavior, this is visible in a model's preference for certain formats or the overuse of words (delve, furthermore), even when such patterns are not present in base model outputs. Research on lexical misalignment induced during preference training is constrained by reliance on manual curation. We address this, by introducing the Triangulated Preference Shift score, a metric that triangulates between human gold standards, base models, and instruct variants to isolate shifts induced specifically by preference learning, without manual curation. We provide data across six model families, anchor the results in the literature, and illustrate the general approach's utility by analyzing whether preference learning shifts models toward what could be interpreted as a "language of prestige". The metric provides an initial automated method to quantify behavioral shifts attributable to preference tuning, and thus, may help inform model alignment and development of trustworthy AI.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent the majority of firms in most economies and often face financial constraints and higher vulnerability to financial distress. Predicting SME default is therefore crucial for financial institutions, policymakers, and researchers. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have improved predictive performance in credit risk modeling. Yet, the limited interpretability of complex models raises concerns regarding transparency and regulatory compliance. This study investigates SME's default predictors and applies explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to them. Using a panel of 50,718 Italian SME over the period 2015-2024, we compare traditional econometric approaches with several ML classifiers. The empirical results show that ML models significantly outperform the traditional logistic regression benchmark in terms of Balanced Accuracy and PR-AUC. To address the interpretability challenge, we introduce DEXiRE-EVO, a novel evolutionary rule extraction framework that combines multi-objective optimization with the Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU) explainability method. The extracted rules reveal economically meaningful patterns associated with SME financial distress, highlighting the roles of weak internal liquidity generation, internal capital erosion, high leverage, and operational inefficiency. Additionally, contextual macroeconomic conditions and the persistence of financial instability contribute to identifying high-risk firms. In general, the results show that combining ML with evolutionary rule extraction can improve both predictive performance and interpretability in credit risk modeling, thus supporting more transparent, data-driven decision-making in financial environments.

The widespread adoption of AI chatbots in education will drastically change learning, making responsible deployment a critical concern. While large language models (LLMs) might have access to sources discussing insights from educational sciences, they are not particularly inclined to adhere to pedagogical concepts, risking negative effects on the learning process, such as a loss of transfer capabilities, critical thinking, or creativity. In this paper, we introduce an agentic AI chatbot architecture assisting students with exercise solving, specifically designed to contribute to more responsible AI use in education. We base our conceptual development on the identification of several desiderata for responsible LLM-based educational systems, argue for the structural shortcomings inherent in monolithic, out-of-the-box solutions, and instead suggest modularizing the agentic architecture. We propose specific modules for different stages of exercise solving, enabling incorporation of targeted pedagogical advice, guiding students through the learning process in a more controllable, transparent, and overseeable manner.

Existing guardrail systems for large language model agents operate as binary classifiers that block unsafe content, leaving organizations to discard failing outputs and retry from scratch. We introduce RAIL Guard, a closed-loop responsible AI pipeline that evaluates LLM outputs across eight measurable dimensions and iteratively remediates failing outputs through an evaluate-rewrite-reevaluate loop. We evaluate the pipeline across three experiments on four frontier LLMs and 4,276 content outputs plus 6,400 agent tool-call scenarios. Closed-loop remediation achieves 96.9% convergence versus 49.1% for block-and-retry, though the highest-convergence method reduces utility by 22.3%; feedback-driven self-repair achieves 86.6% convergence on fixable dimensions with no significant utility loss (p = 0.177). Pre-tool-call evaluation reduces unsafe agent executions by 33% (p = 0.007) with zero impact on task completion. We identify a key distinction between fixable dimensions that respond to remediation and structural dimensions (Transparency at 93.0%, Accountability at 92.8%, and Inclusivity at 82.5% failure) that require architectural rather than algorithmic solutions. The system is available as open-source SDKs.

Show, Don't TELL: Explainable AI-Generated Text Detection

Aldan Creo, Suraj Ranganath

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.

Drawing on Ullmann-Margalit's concept of opting (transformative, irrevocable, and shadowed by foreclosed alternatives), we show that current AI systems raise a profound ethical problem that existing AI ethics has not fully captured: the illusion of opting, in which persons and groups encounter the deceptive appearance of meaningful consequential choice while the agency needed to become genuinely capable of choosing is weakened. Against approaches that treat AI primarily as an optimizer of already given ends, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated by whether they protect and cultivate meta-capacity against the illusion of opting: the socially and institutionally scaffolded agentive capacity through which means and ends can be formed, contested, revised, and owned. This reframing is especially urgent for disadvantaged populations, who are least able to absorb the costs of the illusion of opting when AI-mediated pathways misdirect behavior and action. We propose three normative imperatives for AI-mediated consequential decisions: existential honesty, which acknowledges the limits of prediction; ecological rationality, which situates guidance within heterogeneous lived ecologies; and counterfactual reparation, which acknowledges and repairs foreclosed alternatives when AI-mediated decision-making pathways fail.