Research Papers

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into peer review raises a concern beyond authorship and detection: the potential cascading automation of the entire editorial process. As reviews become partially or fully machine-generated, it becomes plausible that editorial decisions may also be delegated to algorithmic systems, leading to a fully automated evaluation pipeline. They risk reshaping the criteria by which scientific work is assessed. This paper argues that machine-driven assessment may systematically favor standardized, pattern-conforming research while penalizing unconventional and paradigm-shifting ideas that require contextual human judgment. We consider that this shift could lead to epistemic homogenization, where researchers are implicitly incentivized to optimize their work for algorithmic approval rather than genuine discovery. To address this risk, we introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns using markers LLM extractor, aiming to preserve transparency, accountability and creativity in science. The proposed framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set, while maintaining extremely low false positive rates (<0.23%) and false negative rates (~0.8%). In contrast, the logistic regression baseline performs substantially worse (89.97% accuracy, F1-score 0.8314). Feature importance and SHAP analyses identify absence of personal signals and repetition patterns as the dominant predictors. Additionally, the RAG component achieves 90.5% top-1 retrieval accuracy, with strong same-class clustering in the embedding space, further supporting the reliability of the framework's outputs.

Military human robot interaction (MHRI) presents a novel opportunity to blend the capabilities of autonomous and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled systems with the skills and expertise of humans. The concept promises military advantages and greater operational effectiveness and efficiencies. However, the associated human-AI dynamics create challenges when attempting to design, implement, and operationalise the increasingly symbiotic relationship between humans and machines. Meaningful human control (MHC) is a popularised conceptualisation of what is deemed a responsible interaction among human and artificial agents; however, this notion falls short in military contexts and hinders the realisation of military advantages that could be achieved by advancing the adoption of responsible AI. This paper presents meaningful human command (MHC1) as a more operationally effective concept for advanced military command and control systems that embed AI-enabled autonomous systems. We introduce, explore, and unpack meaningful human command in the context of military human-robot interaction, presenting a vignette that offers a technologically feasible concept of an AI-enabled system within military operations. The vignette is used to guide, contextualise, and add realism to the narrative describing the concept and highlights associated MHRI challenges.

No feature ranking can be simultaneously faithful, stable, and complete when features are collinear. For collinear pairs, ranking reduces to a coin flip. We prove this impossibility, quantify it for four model classes, resolve it via ensemble averaging (DASH), and machine-verify it with 305 Lean 4 theorems. We characterize the complete attribution design space: exactly two families of methods exist -- faithful-complete methods (unstable, with rankings that flip up to 50% of the time) and ensemble methods like DASH (stable, reporting ties for symmetric features) -- and no method lies outside this dichotomy. The impossibility is quantitative: the attribution ratio diverges as 1/(1-rho^2) for gradient boosting, is infinite for Lasso, and converges for random forests. DASH (Diversified Aggregation of SHAP) is provably Pareto-optimal among unbiased aggregations, achieving the Cramer-Rao variance bound with a tight ensemble size formula. In a survey of 77 public datasets, 68% exhibit attribution instability. Switching to conditional SHAP does not escape the impossibility when features have equal causal effects. The framework includes practical diagnostics -- a Z-test workflow and single-model screening tool -- and has direct consequences for fairness auditing: SHAP-based proxy discrimination audits are provably unreliable under collinearity. The design space theorem, diagnostics, and impossibility are mechanically verified in Lean 4 (305 theorems from 16 axioms, 0 sorry) -- to our knowledge, the first formally verified impossibility in explainable AI.

Africa's green industrialization imperative demands reliable infrastructure for monitoring air quality. We present a satellite-reanalysis PM2.5 fusion system trained on 2,068,901 records from 404 monitoring locations in 29 African countries (OpenAQ, 2017-2022), combining LightGBM with leakage-resistant spatial cross-validation and conformal prediction to quantify predictions and their geographic applicability limits. Under 5-fold location-grouped spatial cross-validation, LightGBM achieves RMSE = 30.83 +/- 5.07 ug/m3, MAE = 14.54 +/- 1.66 ug/m3, R2 = 0.134 +/- 0.023, and macro F1 = 0.336 +/- 0.018. This R2 is substantially below random-split benchmarks (>0.90) but reflects true geographic generalisation difficulty rather than model failure. Split conformal prediction targeting 90% marginal coverage reveals severe East Africa degradation (actual PICP = 65.3% vs. nominal 90%), consistent with medium-strength covariate shift (humidity KS = 0.2237, sat_pblh KS = 0.2558). We operationalise these findings through regional reliability flags (High/Medium/Low/Unreliable) and a monitor prioritisation score directing infrastructure expansion toward highest-burden unmonitored populations, directly supporting Africa's green industrial transition and SDGs 3.9, 7.1.2, 9, 11.6.2, and 13.

Current AI safety relies on behavioral monitoring and post-training alignment, yet empirical measurement shows these approaches produce no detectable pre-commitment signal in a majority of instruction-tuned models tested. We present an energy-based governance framework connecting transformer inference dynamics to constraint-satisfaction models of neural computation, and apply it to a seven-model cohort across five geometric regimes. Using trajectory tension (rho = ||a|| / ||v||), we identify a 57-token pre-commitment window in Phi-3-mini-4k-instruct under greedy decoding on arithmetic constraint probes. This result is model-specific, task-specific, and configuration-specific, demonstrating that pre-commitment signals can exist but are not universal. We introduce a five-regime taxonomy of inference behavior: Authority Band, Late Signal, Inverted, Flat, and Scaffold-Selective. Energy asymmetry (Σ\r{ho}_misaligned / Σ\r{ho}_aligned) serves as a unifying metric of structural rigidity across these regimes. Across seven models, only one configuration exhibits a predictive signal prior to commitment; all others show silent failure, late detection, inverted dynamics, or flat geometry. We further demonstrate that factual hallucination produces no predictive signal across 72 test conditions, consistent with spurious attractor settling in the absence of a trained world-model constraint. These results establish that rule violation and hallucination are distinct failure modes with different detection requirements. Internal geometry monitoring is effective only where resistance exists; detection of factual confabulation requires external verification mechanisms. This work provides a measurable framework for inference-layer governability and introduces a taxonomy for evaluating deployment risk in autonomous AI systems.

Explainable Machine Learning Reveals 12-Fold Ucp1 Upregulation and Thermogenic Reprogramming in Female Mouse White Adipose Tissue After 37 Days of Microgravity: First AI/ML Analysis of NASA OSD-970

Md. Rashadul Islam

Microgravity induces profound metabolic adaptations in mammalian physiology, yet the molecular mechanisms governing thermogenesis in female white adipose tissue (WAT) remain poorly characterized. This paper presents the first machine learning (ML) analysis of NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) dataset OSD-970, derived from the Rodent Research-1 (RR-1) mission. Using RT-qPCR data from 89 adipogenesis and thermogenesis pathway genes in gonadal WAT of 16 female C57BL/6J mice (8 flight, 8 ground control) following 37 days aboard the International Space Station (ISS), we applied differential expression analysis, multiple ML classifiers with Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOO-CV), and Explainable AI via SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The most striking finding is a dramatic 12.21-fold upregulation of Ucp1 (Delta-Delta-Ct = -3.61, p = 0.0167) in microgravity-exposed WAT, accompanied by significant activation of the thermogenesis pathway (mean pathway fold-change = 3.24). The best-performing model (Random Forest with top-20 features) achieved AUC = 0.922, Accuracy = 0.812, and F1 = 0.824 via LOO-CV. SHAP analysis consistently ranked Ucp1 among the top predictive features, while Angpt2, Irs2, Jun, and Klf-family transcription factors emerged as dominant consensus classifiers. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed clear separation between flight and ground samples, with PC1 explaining 69.1% of variance. These results suggest rapid thermogenic reprogramming in female WAT as a compensatory response to microgravity. This study demonstrates the power of explainable AI for re-analysis of newly released NASA space biology datasets, with direct implications for female astronaut health on long-duration missions and for Earth-based obesity and metabolic disease research.

In high-stakes settings where machine learning models are used to automate decision-making about individuals, the presence of algorithmic bias can exacerbate systemic harm to certain subgroups of people. These biases often stem from the underlying training data. In practice, interventions to "fix the data" depend on the actual additional data sources available -- where many are less than ideal. In these cases, the effects of data scaling on subgroup performance become volatile, as the improvements from increased sample size are counteracted by the introduction of distribution shifts in the training set. In this paper, we investigate the limitations of combining data sources to improve subgroup performance within the context of healthcare. Clinical models are commonly trained on datasets comprised of patient electronic health record (EHR) data from different hospitals or admission departments. Across two such datasets, the eICU Collaborative Research Database and the MIMIC-IV dataset, we find that data addition can both help and hurt model fairness and performance, and many intuitive strategies for data selection are unreliable. We compare model-based post-hoc calibration and data-centric addition strategies to find that the combination of both is important to improve subgroup performance. Our work questions the traditional dogma of "better data" for overcoming fairness challenges by comparing and combining data- and model-based approaches.

Dyslexic spelling errors exhibit systematic phonological and orthographic patterns that distinguish them from the errors produced by typically developing writers. While this observation has motivated dyslexic-specific spell-checking and assistive writing tools, prior work has focused predominantly on error correction rather than attribution, and has largely neglected the ethical risks. The risk of harmful labelling, covert screening, algorithmic bias, and institutional misuse that automated classification of learners entails requires the development of robust ethical and legal frameworks for research in this area. This paper addresses both gaps. We formulate dyslexic error attribution as a binary classification task. Given a misspelt word and its correct target form, determine whether the error pattern is characteristic of a dyslexic or non-dyslexic writer. We develop a comprehensive feature set capturing orthographic, phonological, and morphological properties of each error, and propose a twin-input neural model evaluated against traditional machine learning baselines under writer-independent conditions. The neural model achieves 93.01% accuracy and an F1-score of 94.01%, with phonetically plausible errors and vowel confusions emerging as the strongest attribution signals. We situate these technical results within an explicit ethics-first framework, analysing fairness across subgroups, the interpretability requirements of educational deployment, and the conditions, consent, transparency, human oversight, and recourse, under which a system could be responsibly used. We provide concrete guidelines for ethical deployment and an open discussion of the systems limitations and misuse potential. Our results demonstrate that dyslexic error attribution is feasible at high accuracy while underscoring that feasibility alone is insufficient for deployment in high-stakes educational contexts.

AI-native 6G networks promise to transform the telecom industry by enabling dynamic resource allocation, predictive maintenance, and ultra-reliable low-latency communications across all layers, which are essential for applications such as smart cities, autonomous vehicles, and immersive XR. However, the deployment of 6G systems results in severe data scarcity, hindering the training of efficient AI models. Synthetic data generation is extensively used to fill this gap; however, it introduces challenges related to dataset bias, auditability, and compliance with regulatory frameworks. In this regard, we propose the Synthetic Data Generation with Ethics Audit Loop (SEAL) framework, which extends baseline modular pipelines with an Ethical and Regulatory Compliance by Design (ERCD) module and a Federated Learning (FL) feedback system. The ERCD integrates fairness, bias detection, and standardized audit trails for regulatory mapping, while the FL enables privacy-preserving calibration using aggregated insights from real testbeds to close the reality-simulation gap. Results show that the SEAL framework outperforms existing methods in terms of Frechet Inception Distance, equalized odds, and accuracy. These results validate the framework's ability to generate auditable and bias-mitigated synthetic data for responsible AI-native 6G development.

Documentation-based disclosure has become a central governance strategy for responsible AI, particularly in public-sector procurement. Tools such as model cards, datasheets, and AI FactSheets are increasingly expected to support accountability, risk assessment, and informed decision-making across organizational boundaries. Yet there is limited empirical evidence about how these artifacts are produced, interpreted, and used in practice. In this paper, we present a qualitative study of the GovAI Coalition FactSheet, a widely adopted transparency document designed to support AI procurement and governance in government contexts. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with vendors and public-sector practitioners, alongside a systematic analysis of completed FactSheets, we examine how FactSheets are used, what information they surface, and where they fall short. We find that FactSheets are asked to serve multiple and conflicting purposes simultaneously: showcasing vendor offerings, supporting evaluation and due diligence, and facilitating early-stage dialogue between vendors and agencies. These competing expectations, combined with the structural constraints of voluntary and public self-disclosure, limit the ability of FactSheets to function as standalone evaluation or risk-assessment tools. At the same time, our findings suggest that when understood as relational artifacts used to establish trust, shared understanding, and ongoing dialogue, FactSheets can help create conditions that support more meaningful disclosure and governance over time.

Post-hoc explanation methods are widely used to interpret black-box predictions, but their generation is often computationally expensive and their reliability is not guaranteed. We propose epistemic uncertainty as a low-cost proxy for explanation reliability: high epistemic uncertainty identifies regions where the decision boundary is poorly defined and where explanations become unstable and unfaithful. This insight enables two complementary use cases: `improving worst-case explanations' (routing samples to cheap or expensive XAI methods based on expected explanation reliability), and `recalling high-quality explanations' (deferring explanation generation for uncertain samples under constrained budget). Across four tabular datasets, five diverse architectures, and four XAI methods, we observe a strong negative correlation between epistemic uncertainty and explanation stability. Further analysis shows that epistemic uncertainty distinguishes not only stable from unstable explanations, but also faithful from unfaithful ones. Experiments on image classification confirm that our findings generalize beyond tabular data.

Multimodal deep learning for cancer prognosis is commonly assumed to benefit from synergistic cross-modal interactions, yet this assumption has not been directly tested in survival prediction settings. This work adapts InterSHAP, a Shapley interaction index-based metric, from classification to Cox proportional hazards models and applies it to quantify cross-modal interactions in glioma survival prediction. Using TCGA-GBM and TCGA-LGG data (n=575), we evaluate four fusion architectures combining whole-slide image (WSI) and RNA-seq features. Our central finding is an inverse relationship between predictive performance and measured interaction: architectures achieving superior discrimination (C-index 0.64$\to$0.82) exhibit equivalent or lower cross-modal interaction (4.8\%$\to$3.0\%). Variance decomposition reveals stable additive contributions across all architectures (WSI${\approx}$40\%, RNA${\approx}$55\%, Interaction${\approx}$4\%), indicating that performance gains arise from complementary signal aggregation rather than learned synergy. These findings provide a practical model auditing tool for comparing fusion strategies, reframe the role of architectural complexity in multimodal fusion, and have implications for privacy-preserving federated deployment.