Research Papers

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, from task-specific systems to foundation models exhibiting broad, flexible competence across reasoning, creative synthesis, and social interaction, has outpaced the conceptual and governance frameworks designed to manage it. Current regulatory paradigms, anchored in a tool-centric worldview, address algorithmic bias and transparency but leave unanswered foundational questions about what increasingly capable synthetic minds are, how societies should relate to them, and the normative principles that should guide their development. Here we introduce the Onto-Relational-Sophic (ORS) framework, grounded in Cyberism philosophy, which offers integrated answers to these challenges through three pillars: (1) a Cyber-Physical-Social-Thinking (CPST) ontology that defines the mode of being for synthetic minds as irreducibly multi-dimensional rather than purely computational; (2) a graded spectrum of digital personhood providing a pragmatic relational taxonomy beyond binary person-or-tool classifications; and (3) Cybersophy, a wisdom-oriented axiology synthesizing virtue ethics, consequentialism, and relational approaches to guide governance. We apply the framework to emergent scenarios including autonomous research agents, AI-mediated healthcare, and agentic AI ecosystems, demonstrating its capacity to generate proportionate, adaptive governance recommendations. The ORS framework charts a path from narrow technical alignment toward comprehensive philosophical foundations for the synthetic minds already among us.

An investigation, from a gender perspective, of how students view the ethical implications and societal effects of artificial intelligence is conducted, examining concepts that could have a big influence on how artificial intelligence may be taught in the future. For this, we conducted a survey on a cohort of 230 second year computer science students to reveal their opinions. The results revealed that AI, from the students' perspective, will significantly impact daily life, particularly in areas such as medicine, education, or media. Men are more aware of potential changes in Computer Science, autonomous driving, image and video processing, and chatbot usage, while women mention more the impact on social media. Both men and women perceive potential threats in the same manner, with men more aware of war, AI controlled drones, terrain recognition, and information war. Women seem to have a stronger tendency towards ethical considerations and helping others.

Despite significant advances in responsible AI research, industry adoption remains limited, leaving many HCI contributions underutilized in practice. This position paper argues that current research often fails to account for the fundamental need for capitalist enterprises to create value. To achieve immediate real-world impact, responsible AI research must explore how to design responsibly within capitalism. We call for a move beyond the dichotomy of "ethics vs. business" toward a more productive framing of "ethics and business." We propose ideation as a practical design strategy for generating ethically preferable alternatives that also meet business objectives. By aligning ethics with enterprise realities, we expand the space of responsible design that can actually be built.

Recently, in eXplainable AI (XAI), $\textit{even if}$ explanations -- so-called semi-factuals -- have emerged as a popular strategy that explains how a predicted outcome $\textit{can remain the same}$ even when certain input-features are altered. For example, in the commonly-used banking app scenario, a semi-factual explanation could inform customers about better options, other alternatives for their successful application, by saying "$\textit{Even if}$ you asked for double the loan amount, you would still be accepted". Most semi-factuals XAI algorithms focus on finding maximal value-changes to a single key-feature that do $\textit{not}$ alter the outcome (unlike counterfactual explanations that often find minimal value-changes to several features that alter the outcome). However, no current semi-factual method explains $\textit{why}$ these extreme value-changes do not alter outcomes; for example, a more informative semi-factual could tell the customer that it is their good credit score that allows them to borrow double their requested loan. In this work, we advance a new algorithm -- the $\textit{informative semi-factuals}$ (ISF) method -- that generates more elaborated explanations supplementing semi-factuals with information about additional $\textit{hidden features}$ that influence an automated decision. Experimental results on benchmark datasets show that this ISF method computes semi-factuals that are both informative and of high-quality on key metrics. Furthermore, a user study shows that people prefer these elaborated explanations over the simpler semi-factual explanations generated by current methods.

Existing XAI metrics measure faithfulness for a single model, ignoring model multiplicity where near-optimal classifiers rely on different or spurious acoustic cues. In noisy farm environments, stationary artifacts such as ventilation noise can produce explanations that are faithful yet unreliable, as masking-based metrics fail to penalize redundant shortcuts. We propose AGRI-Fidelity, a reliability-oriented evaluation framework for listenable explanations in poultry disease detection without spatial ground truth. The method combines cross-model consensus with cyclic temporal permutation to construct null distributions and compute a False Discovery Rate (FDR), suppressing stationary artifacts while preserving time-localized bioacoustic markers. Across real and controlled datasets, AGRI-Fidelity effectively provides reliability-aware discrimination for all data points versus masking-based metrics.

Attribution methods in explainable AI rely on upsampling techniques that were designed for natural images, not saliency maps. Standard bilinear and bicubic interpolation systematically corrupts attribution signals through aliasing, ringing, and boundary bleeding, producing spurious high-importance regions that misrepresent model reasoning. We identify that the core issue is treating attribution upsampling as an interpolation problem that operates in isolation from the model's reasoning, rather than a mass redistribution problem where model-derived semantic boundaries must govern how importance flows. We present Universal Semantic-Aware Upsampling (USU), a principled method that reformulates upsampling through ratio-form mass redistribution operators, provably preserving attribution mass and relative importance ordering. Extending the axiomatic tradition of feature attribution to upsampling, we formalize four desiderata for faithful upsampling and prove that interpolation structurally violates three of them. These same three force any redistribution operator into a ratio form; the fourth selects the unique potential within this family, yielding USU. Controlled experiments on models with known attribution priors verify USU's formal guarantees; evaluation across ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CUB-200 confirms consistent faithfulness improvements and qualitatively superior, semantically coherent explanations.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical settings, yet limited oversight and domain expertise can allow algorithmic bias and safety risks to persist. This study evaluates whether an agentic AI system can support auditing biomedical machine learning models for fairness in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), a condition with documented demographic disparities. We implemented a two-agent architecture consisting of a Domain Expert Agent that synthesizes literature on EO-CRC disparities and a Fairness Consultant Agent that recommends sensitive attributes and fairness metrics for model evaluation. An ablation study compared three Ollama large language models (8B, 20B, and 120B parameters) across three configurations: pretrained LLM-only, Agent without Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and Agent with RAG. Across models, the Agent with RAG achieved the highest semantic similarity to expert-derived reference statements, particularly for disparity identification, suggesting agentic systems with retrieval may help scale fairness auditing in clinical AI.

Metaphors fundamentally shape how we reason about complex issues like artificial intelligence, yet current approaches to metaphor analysis in political discourse suffer from inconsistent definitions and methodologies. This paper introduces Narrative Frames, a novel categorisation system that addresses these limitations by providing a standardised framework for identifying and analysing metaphors in AI policy debates. Building on Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory, we derive 49 distinct narrative frames through a two-stage process: inductively coding 685 metaphors from the MetaNet database, then cross-referencing findings with 82 critical metaphor analysis studies. This methodology grounds the typology in both empirical data and established theoretical concepts while resolving definitional ambiguities that have hindered cross-study comparison. The Narrative Frames system offers researchers, journalists, and policymakers a shared vocabulary for analysing how metaphors shape public perception and policy priorities in AI governance. By revealing both the frames present and notably absent in discourse, this approach enables more transparent analysis of underlying assumptions and power dynamics. We discuss limitations and propose future applications, including computational scaling using large language models.

Explainability is widely regarded as essential for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. However, the metrics commonly used to evaluate counterfactual explanations are algorithmic evaluation metrics that are rarely validated against human judgments of explanation quality. This raises the question of whether such metrics meaningfully reflect user perceptions. We address this question through an empirical study that directly compares algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments across three datasets. Participants rated counterfactual explanations along multiple dimensions of perceived quality, which we relate to a comprehensive set of standard counterfactual metrics. We analyze both individual relationships and the extent to which combinations of metrics can predict human assessments. Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent. Moreover, increasing the number of metrics used in predictive models does not lead to reliable improvements, indicating structural limitations in how current metrics capture criteria relevant for humans. Overall, our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users, underscoring the need for more human-centered approaches to evaluating explainable artificial intelligence.

The assumption that prediction-equivalent models produce equivalent explanations underlies many practices in explainable AI, including model selection, auditing, and regulatory evaluation. In this work, we show that this assumption does not hold. Through a large-scale empirical study across 24 datasets and multiple model classes, we find that models with identical predictive behavior can produce substantially different feature attributions. This disagreement is highly structured: models within the same hypothesis class exhibit strong agreement, while cross-class pairs (e.g., tree-based vs. linear) trained on identical data splits show substantially reduced agreement, consistently near or below the lottery threshold. We identify hypothesis class as the structural driver of this phenomenon, which we term the Explanation Lottery. We theoretically show that the resulting Agreement Gap persists under interaction structure in the data-generating process. This structural finding motivates a post-hoc diagnostic, the Explanation Reliability Score R(x), which predicts when explanations are stable across architectures without additional training. Our results demonstrate that model selection is not explanation-neutral: the hypothesis class chosen for deployment can determine which features are attributed responsibility for a decision.

Humans learn from catastrophic mistakes not through numerical penalties, but through qualitative suffering that reshapes who they are. Current AI safety approaches replicate none of this. Reward shaping captures magnitude, not meaning. Rule-based alignment constrains behaviour, but does not change it. We propose Emotional Cost Functions, a framework in which agents develop Qualitative Suffering States, rich narrative representations of irreversible consequences that persist forward and actively reshape character. Unlike numerical penalties, qualitative suffering states capture the meaning of what was lost, the specific void it creates, and how it changes the agent's relationship to similar future situations. Our four-component architecture - Consequence Processor, Character State, Anticipatory Scan, and Story Update is grounded in one principle. Actions cannot be undone and agents must live with what they have caused. Anticipatory dread operates through two pathways. Experiential dread arises from the agent's own lived consequences. Pre-experiential dread is acquired without direct experience, through training or inter-agent transmission. Together they mirror how human wisdom accumulates across experience and culture. Ten experiments across financial trading, crisis support, and content moderation show that qualitative suffering produces specific wisdom rather than generalised paralysis. Agents correctly engage with moderate opportunities at 90-100% while numerical baselines over-refuse at 90%. Architecture ablation confirms the mechanism is necessary. The full system generates ten personal grounding phrases per probe vs. zero for a vanilla LLM. Statistical validation (N=10) confirms reproducibility at 80-100% consistency.

Scaling the Explanation of Multi-Class Bayesian Network Classifiers

Yaofang Zhang, Adnan Darwiche

We propose a new algorithm for compiling Bayesian network classifier (BNC) into class formulas. Class formulas are logical formulas that represent a classifier's input-output behavior, and are crucial in the recent line of work that uses logical reasoning to explain the decisions made by classifiers. Compared to prior work on compiling class formulas of BNCs, our proposed algorithm is not restricted to binary classifiers, shows significant improvement in compilation time, and outputs class formulas as negation normal form (NNF) circuits that are OR-decomposable, which is an important property when computing explanations of classifiers.