Research Papers

Public awareness of AI ethics plays a crucial role in fostering the responsible and sustainable development of AI technology. However, finding effective ways to promote public understanding of the ethical risks of AI remains a challenge. Given the complexity of AI ethical issues and the cognitive limitations of the public, this review paper proposes a conceptual framework for inclusive learning analytics with embedded data comics. Data comics help transform complex and abstract AI ethics cases into compelling and relatable stories, fostering public empathy and introspection. More importantly, inclusive learning analytics targets not only people of different demographic attributes, but also different mindsets with inherent cognitive biases. By providing equal and easily accessible channels for AI ethics issues, we aim to encourage the public to reflect on AI ethics incidents from multiple perspectives and develop the habit of continuous learning to adapt to evolving AI technologies and ethical risks.

Rethinking XAI Evaluation: A Human-Centered Audit of Shapley Benchmarks in High-Stakes Settings

Inês Oliveira e Silva, Sérgio Jesus, Iker Perez +4

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

This study investigates perceptions and use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools among students and faculty in statistics and data science at a historically Black college or university. Survey data from 119 valid student responses and 14 faculty responses were used to examine familiarity, usage patterns, perceived benefits, awareness of limitations, and instructional support needs. Students reported substantial use of GenAI, with ChatGPT as the dominant tool, primarily for coding assistance and writing support. Although student perceptions of AI in data science workflows and careers were generally positive, confidence in interpreting AI-generated outputs was limited, and concerns about accuracy, reliability, and over-reliance were common. Faculty also viewed GenAI favorably, but self-rated proficiency and the frequency of classroom integration remained limited. Comparisons across student subgroups suggested that familiarity with GenAI and awareness of its limitations varied more by academic level than by gender. These findings highlight a gap between AI adoption and AI literacy and underscore the need for structured training, validation practices, and clearer institutional guidance for responsible AI integration in data science education.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. This limitation poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount. In this paper, we introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs. DAVinCI operates in two stages: (i) it attributes generated claims to internal model components and external sources; (ii) it verifies each claim using entailment-based reasoning and confidence calibration. We evaluate DAVinCI across multiple datasets, including FEVER and CLIMATE-FEVER, and compare its performance against standard verification-only baselines. Our results show that DAVinCI significantly improves classification accuracy, attribution precision, recall, and F1-score by 5-20%. Through an extensive ablation study, we isolate the contributions of evidence span selection, recalibration thresholds, and retrieval quality. We also release a modular DAVinCI implementation that can be integrated into existing LLM pipelines. By bridging attribution and verification, DAVinCI offers a scalable path to auditable, trustworthy AI systems. This work contributes to the growing effort to make LLMs not only powerful but also accountable.

We introduce TravelFraudBench (TFG), a configurable benchmark for evaluating graph neural networks (GNNs) on fraud ring detection in travel platform graphs. Existing benchmarks--YelpChi, Amazon-Fraud, Elliptic, PaySim--cover single node types or domain-generic patterns with no mechanism to evaluate across structurally distinct fraud ring topologies. TFG simulates three travel-specific ring types--ticketing fraud (star topology with shared device/IP clusters), ghost hotel schemes (reviewer x hotel bipartite cliques), and account takeover rings (loyalty transfer chains)--in a heterogeneous graph with 9 node types and 12 edge types. Ring size, count, fraud rate, scale (500 to 200,000 nodes), and composition are fully configurable. We evaluate six methods--MLP, GraphSAGE, RGCN-proj, HAN, RGCN, and PC-GNN--under a ring-based split where each ring appears entirely in one partition, eliminating transductive label leakage. GraphSAGE achieves AUC=0.992 and RGCN-proj AUC=0.987, outperforming the MLP baseline (AUC=0.938) by 5.5 and 5.0 pp, confirming graph structure adds substantial discriminative power. HAN (AUC=0.935) is a negative result, matching the MLP baseline. On the ring recovery task (>=80% of ring members flagged simultaneously), GraphSAGE achieves 100% recovery across all ring types; MLP recovers only 17-88%. The edge-type ablation shows device and IP co-occurrence are the primary signals: removing uses_device drops AUC by 5.2 pp. TFG is released as an open-source Python package (MIT license) with PyG, DGL, and NetworkX exporters and pre-generated datasets at https://huggingface.co/datasets/bsajja7/travel-fraud-graphs, with Croissant metadata including Responsible AI fields.

Graph representation learning has achieved notable success in encoding graph-structured data into latent vector spaces, enabling a wide range of downstream tasks. However, these node representations remain opaque and difficult to interpret. Existing explainability methods primarily focus on supervised settings or on explaining individual representation dimensions, leaving a critical gap in explaining the overall structure of node representations. In this paper, we propose TACENR (Task-Agnostic Contrastive Explanations for Node Representations), a local explanation method that identifies not only attribute features but also proximity and structural ones that contribute the most in the representation space. TACENR builds on contrastive learning, through which we learn a similarity function in the representation space, revealing which are the features that play an important role in the representation of a node. While our focus is on task-agnostic explanations, TACENR can be applied to supervised scenarios as well. Experimental results demonstrate that proximity and structural features play a significant role in shaping node representations and that our supervised variant performs comparably to existing task-specific approaches in identifying the most impactful features.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has predominantly focused on generating model-centric explanations that approximate the behavior of black-box models. However, such explanations often overlook a fundamental aspect of interpretability: different users require different explanations depending on their goals, preferences, and cognitive constraints. Although recent work has explored user-centric and personalized explanations, most existing approaches rely on heuristic adaptations or implicit user modeling, lacking a principled framework for representing and learning individual preferences. In this paper, we consider Preference-Based Explainable Artificial Intelligence (PREF-XAI), a novel perspective that reframes explanation as a preference-driven decision problem. Within PREF-XAI, explanations are not treated as fixed outputs, but as alternatives to be evaluated and selected according to user-specific criteria. In the PREF-XAI perspective, here we propose a methodology that combines rule-based explanations with formal preference learning. User preferences are elicited through a ranking of a small set of candidate explanations and modeled via an additive utility function inferred using robust ordinal regression. Experimental results on real-world datasets show that PREF-XAI can accurately reconstruct user preferences from limited feedback, identify highly relevant explanations, and discover novel explanatory rules not initially considered by the user. Beyond the proposed methodology, this work establishes a connection between XAI and preference learning, opening new directions for interactive and adaptive explanation systems.

Automatic bacterial colony counting is a highly sought-after technology in modern biological laboratories because it eliminates manual counting effort. Previous work has observed that MicrobiaNet, currently the best-performing cardinality classification model for colony counting, has difficulty distinguishing colonies of three or more individuals. However, it is unclear if this is due to properties of the data together with inherent characteristics of the MicrobiaNet model. By analysing MicrobiaNet with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), we demonstrate that XAI can provide insights into how data properties constrain cardinality classification performance in colony counting. Our results show that high visual similarity across classes is the key issue hindering further performance improvement, revising prior assertions about MicrobiaNet. These findings suggest future work should focus on models that explicitly incorporate visual similarity or explore density estimation approaches, with broader implications for neural network classifiers trained on imbalanced datasets.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) effectively integrate text and audio to interpret context in complex interactive dialogues. However, the internal mechanisms by which heterogeneous modalities influence model behavior remain opaque. While Shapley Values (SV) provide a robust, model-agnostic framework for local explainability in text-based NLP, their extension to multimodal data is hindered by cross-channel dependencies, intricate dialogue structures, and the prohibitive computational complexity of dense audio representations. In this work, we formalize a multimodal extension of the Shapley Value framework, treating discrete text tokens and aligned audio segments as cooperative features. To ensure computational feasibility, we deploy a suite of efficient estimation strategies: exact SV computation for low-dimensional inputs and sampling-based approximations - including Monte Carlo permutations and stratified sampling with Neyman-optimal allocation - to minimize variance under constrained computational budgets. To resolve the granularity mismatch between modalities, we propose Spectrogram-Guided Phonetic Alignment (SGPA), a novel preprocessing method that maps high-frequency audio streams to interpretable, word-aligned segments. Our contribution is twofold: first, we provide an open-source, model-agnostic Python package and a companion GUI for the computation and interactive visualization of multimodal attributions. Second, we evaluate our framework using curated subsets of the VoiceBench and Infinity Instruct datasets across diverse multilingual scenarios. Our experimental results reveal that input modality is a primary driver of attribution volatility and demonstrate that standard syntactic importance proxies often fail to predict model attention in multimodal, cross-lingual contexts.

Because artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly mediates organizational work, fairness has become a critical governance challenge. Existing frameworks often prioritize abstract ethical principles rather than fairness-specific ones and lack actionable guidance across the entire AI lifecycle. This study addresses the principles-to-practice gap in AI fairness governance. We develop actionable AI fairness practices and draw on a socio-technical and praxiological lens, conducting discourse and thematic analyses of 60 academic, policy, and practitioner sources. From these analyses, we derive a structured set of AI fairness practices in a comprehensive, AI lifecycle-spanning matrix organized by obligation degree and organizational role. The matrix provides dynamic, role-specific guidance to support implementation and sustainment of AI fairness. By extending the AI fairness beyond abstract principles to operationalized, actionable practices, we contribute to IS scholarship and offer a modular governance scaffold.

Explaining Machine Learning (ML) results in a transparent and user-friendly manner remains a challenging task of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we present a method to enhance the interpretability of ML models by using a Knowledge Graph (KG). We store domain-specific data along with ML results and their corresponding explanations, establishing a structured connection between domain knowledge and ML insights. To make these insights accessible to users, we designed a selective retrieval method in which relevant triplets are extracted from the KG and processed by a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate user-friendly explanations of ML results. We evaluated our method in a manufacturing environment using the XAI Question Bank. Beyond standard questions, we introduce more complex, tailored questions that highlight the strengths of our approach. We evaluated 33 questions, analyzing responses using quantitative metrics such as accuracy and consistency, as well as qualitative ones such as clarity and usefulness. Our contribution is both theoretical and practical: from a theoretical perspective, we present a novel approach for effectively enabling LLMs to dynamically access a KG in order to improve the explainability of ML results. From a practical perspective, we provide empirical evidence showing that such explanations can be successfully applied in real-world manufacturing environments, supporting better decision-making in manufacturing processes.