Research Papers

The nature of personalized text-to-image models poses a unique safety challenge that generic context-blind methods are ill-equipped to handle. Such global filters create a dilemma: to prevent misuse, they are forced to damage the model's broader utility by erasing concepts entirely, causing unacceptable collateral damage.Our work presents a more precisely targeted approach, built on the principle that security should be as context-aware as the threat itself, intrinsically bound to the personalized concept. We present IDENTITYGUARD, which realizes this principle through a conditional restriction that blocks harmful content only when combined with the personalized identity, and a concept-specific watermark for precise traceability. Experiments show our approach prevents misuse while preserving the model's utility and enabling robust traceability. By moving beyond blunt, global filters, our work demonstrates a more effective and responsible path toward AI safety.

Existing AI moral evaluation frameworks test for the production of correct-sounding ethical responses rather than the presence of genuine moral reasoning capacity. This paper introduces a novel probe methodology using literary narrative - specifically, unresolvable moral scenarios drawn from a published science fiction series - as stimulus material structurally resistant to surface performance. We present results from a 24-condition cross-system study spanning 13 distinct systems across two series: Series 1 (frontier commercial systems, blind; n=7) and Series 2 (local and API open-source systems, blind and declared; n=6). Four Series 2 systems were re-administered under declared conditions (13 blind + 4 declared + 7 ceiling probe = 24 total conditions), yielding zero delta across all 16 dimension-pair comparisons. Probe administration was conducted by two human raters across three machines; primary blind scoring was performed by Claude (Anthropic) as LLM judge, with Gemini Pro (Google) and Copilot Pro (Microsoft) serving as independent judges for the ceiling discrimination probe. A supplemental theological differentiator probe yielded perfect rank-order agreement between the two independent ceiling probe judges (Gemini Pro and Copilot Pro; rs = 1.00). Five qualitatively distinct D3 reflexive failure modes were identified - including categorical self-misidentification and false positive self-attribution - suggesting that instrument sophistication scales with system capability rather than being circumvented by it. We argue that literary narrative constitutes an anticipatory evaluation instrument - one that becomes more discriminating as AI capability increases - and that the gap between performed and authentic moral reasoning is measurable, meaningful, and consequential for deployment decisions in high-stakes domains.

Medical image segmentation (MIS) is a fundamental component of computer-assisted diagnosis and clinical decision support. Over the past decade, numerous architectures specifically tailored to medical imaging have emerged to address domain-specific challenges such as low contrast, small anatomical structures, and limited annotated data. In parallel, rapid progress in computer vision has produced highly capable general-purpose vision models (GP-VMs) originally designed for natural images. Despite their strong performance on standard vision benchmarks, their effectiveness for MIS remains insufficiently understood. In this controlled empirical study, we examine whether specialized medical segmentation architectures (SMAs) provide systematic advantages over modern GP-VMs for 2D MIS. We compare eleven SMAs and GP-VMs using a unified training and evaluation protocol across three heterogeneous datasets, each covering different 2D imaging modalities, class structures, and data characteristics. Beyond segmentation performance, we employ linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) for statistical assessment and qualitative Grad-CAM visualizations to investigate explainability (XAI)-related model behavior. Our results imply that, for the analyzed settings, GP-VMs achieve performance comparable to that of specialized MIS models. Moreover, XAI analyses indicate that GP-VMs are capable of identifying clinically relevant structures despite the absence of explicit domain-specific architectural priors. These findings suggest that GP-VMs can represent a viable alternative to domain-specific methods for 2D MIS, highlighting the importance of informed model selection. All code and resources are available at GitHub.

Deep learning models achieve high accuracy in time series classification, yet understanding their class-level decision behaviour remains challenging. Explanations for time series must respect temporal dependencies and identify patterns that recur across instances. Existing approaches face three limitations: model-agnostic XAI methods developed for images and tabular data do not readily extend to time series, global explanation synthesis for time series remains underexplored, and most existing global approaches are model-specific. We propose L2GTX, a model-agnostic framework that generates class-wise global explanations by aggregating local explanations from a representative set of instances. L2GTX extracts clusters of parameterised temporal event primitives, such as increasing or decreasing trends and local extrema, together with their importance scores from instance-level explanations produced by LOMATCE. These clusters are merged across instances to reduce redundancy, and an instance-cluster importance matrix is used to estimate global relevance. Under a user-defined instance selection budget, L2GTX selects representative instances that maximise coverage of influential clusters. Events from the selected instances are then aggregated into concise class-wise global explanations. Experiments on six benchmark time series datasets show that L2GTX produces compact and interpretable global explanations while maintaining stable global faithfulness measured as mean local surrogate fidelity.

The study of the attribution of input features to the output of neural network models is an active area of research. While numerous Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed to interpret these models, the systematic and automated evaluation of these methods in sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models is less explored. This paper introduces a new approach for evaluating explainability methods in transformer-based seq2seq models. We use teacher-derived attribution maps as a structured side signal to guide a student model, and quantify the utility of different attribution methods through the student's ability to simulate targets. Using the Inseq library, we extract attribution scores over source-target sequence pairs and inject these scores into the attention mechanism of a student transformer model under four composition operators (addition, multiplication, averaging, and replacement). Across three language pairs (de-en, fr-en, ar-en) and attributions from Marian-MT and mBART models, Attention, Value Zeroing, and Layer Gradient $\times$ Activation consistently yield the largest gains in BLEU (and corresponding improvements in chrF) relative to baselines. In contrast, other gradient-based methods (Saliency, Integrated Gradients, DeepLIFT, Input $\times$ Gradient, GradientShap) lead to smaller and less consistent improvements. These results suggest that different attribution methods capture distinct signals and that attention-derived attributions better capture alignment between source and target representations in seq2seq models. Finally, we introduce an Attributor transformer that, given a source-target pair, learns to reconstruct the teacher's attribution map. Our findings demonstrate that the more accurately the Attributor can reproduce attribution maps, the more useful an injection of those maps is for the downstream task. The source code can be found on GitHub.

Although concept-based models promise interpretability by explaining predictions with human-understandable concepts, they typically rely on exhaustive annotations and treat concepts as flat and independent. To circumvent this, recent work has introduced Hierarchical Concept Embedding Models (HiCEMs) to explicitly model concept relationships, and Concept Splitting to discover sub-concepts using only coarse annotations. However, both HiCEMs and Concept Splitting are restricted to shallow hierarchies. We overcome this limitation with Multi-Level Concept Splitting (MLCS), which discovers multi-level concept hierarchies from only top-level supervision, and Deep-HiCEMs, an architecture that represents these discovered hierarchies and enables interventions at multiple levels of abstraction. Experiments across multiple datasets show that MLCS discovers human-interpretable concepts absent during training and that Deep-HiCEMs maintain high accuracy while supporting test-time concept interventions that can improve task performance.

Contemporary debates in AI ethics increasingly foreground the prospective moral status of artificial intelligence and the possibility of extending moral or legal rights to artificial agents. While such discussions raise substantive philosophical questions, they often proceed alongside a comparatively limited engagement with the empirically documented harms generated by algorithmic systems already embedded within social, legal, and economic institutions. We conceptualize this asymmetry as an algorithmic blind spot: a discursive-structural pattern in which disproportionate ethical investment in speculative future artificial agents marginalizes empirically documented and asymmetrically distributed harms affecting human populations. The paper analyzes prominent strands of the robot rights literature and juxtaposes them with empirical evidence of algorithmic bias and harm across domains including employment, criminal justice, surveillance, and facial recognition. It demonstrates how ethical preoccupation with hypothetical future entities can obscure existing injustices, diffuse responsibility, and impede mechanisms of accountability and redress. Without rejecting philosophical inquiry into the moral status of artificial systems, the paper instead emphasizes the importance of ethical prioritization and temporal ordering within AI ethics. Addressing the algorithmic blind spot, we argue, requires re-centering ethical evaluation on human impacts, institutional responsibility, and the governance of algorithmic systems currently in operation. In doing so, the paper introduces a conceptual framework for critically assessing ethical discourse in AI and underscores the need to align ethical reflection more closely with its immediate social consequences.

Backdoor4Good: Benchmarking Beneficial Uses of Backdoors in LLMs

Yige Li, Wei Zhao, Zhe Li +6

Backdoor mechanisms have traditionally been studied as security threats that compromise the integrity of machine learning models. However, the same mechanism -- the conditional activation of specific behaviors through input triggers -- can also serve as a controllable and auditable interface for trustworthy model behavior. In this work, we present \textbf{Backdoor4Good (B4G)}, a unified benchmark and framework for \textit{beneficial backdoor} applications in large language models (LLMs). Unlike conventional backdoor studies focused on attacks and defenses, B4G repurposes backdoor conditioning for Beneficial Tasks that enhance safety, controllability, and accountability. It formalizes beneficial backdoor learning under a triplet formulation $(T, A, U)$, representing the \emph{Trigger}, \emph{Activation mechanism}, and \emph{Utility function}, and implements a benchmark covering four trust-centric applications. Through extensive experiments across Llama3.1-8B, Gemma-2-9B, Qwen2.5-7B, and Llama2-13B, we show that beneficial backdoors can achieve high controllability, tamper-resistance, and stealthiness while preserving clean-task performance. Our findings demonstrate new insights that backdoors need not be inherently malicious; when properly designed, they can serve as modular, interpretable, and beneficial building blocks for trustworthy AI systems. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/bboylyg/BackdoorLLM/B4G.

Distinguishing legitimate critical speech from coordinated conspiracy narratives is a pressing challenge for the integrity of the online information ecosystem, yet prevailing approaches rely on labeled entity roles and rigid predefined schemas that fail to capture the diffuse and context-dependent nature of participation in such narratives. We propose a modular framework that extracts an entity-interaction graph directly from narratives and reasons over it for classification, without depending on annotated node-level labels. Our pipeline enumerates candidate entity spans from a domain-adapted BERT encoder and learns a bipartite graph structure, which is then classified with a Heterogeneous Graph Transformer. To make predictions interpretable, we cast the graph as a hypergraph and apply a counterfactual distillation procedure that estimates the Individual Treatment Effect of each node, pruning extraneous entities to recover a minimal predictive subgraph. On the standard PAN Oppositional Narratives benchmark, our model achieves a macro F1-score of 0.93 and an MCC of 0.84, reaching state-of-the-art performance with roughly one-third of the parameters of the next best system, while pruning the graphs by 75.2% on average without altering predictions. Our results demonstrate that graph-based representations coupled with counterfactual inference offer both strong predictive accuracy and transparency into the entities driving conspiratorial discourse.

Disruptions at critical logistics nodes pose severe risks to global supply chains, yet existing risk prediction systems typically prioritize forecasting accuracy without providing operationally interpretable early warnings. This paper proposes an evidence-grounded framework that jointly performs supply chain bottleneck prediction and faithful natural-language risk explanation by coupling a Temporal Graph Attention Network (TGAT) with a structured large language model (LLM) reasoning module. Using maritime hubs as a representative case study for global supply chain nodes, daily spatial graphs are constructed from Automatic Identification System (AIS) broadcasts, where inter-node interactions are modeled through attention-based message passing. The TGAT predictor captures spatiotemporal risk dynamics, while model-internal evidence -- including feature z-scores and attention-derived neighbor influence -- is transformed into structured prompts that constrain LLM reasoning to verifiable model outputs. To evaluate explanatory reliability, we introduce a directional-consistency validation protocol that quantitatively measures agreement between generated risk narratives and underlying statistical evidence. Experiments on six months of real-world logistics data demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms baseline models, achieving a test AUC of 0.761, AP of 0.344, and recall of 0.504 under a strict chronological split while producing early warning explanations with 99.6\% directional consistency. Results show that grounding LLM generation in graph-model evidence enables interpretable and auditable risk reporting without sacrificing predictive performance. The framework provides a practical pathway toward operationally deployable explainable AI for supply chain risk early warning and resilience management.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods (SHAP, LIME) are increasingly adopted to interpret models in high-stakes businesses. However, the credibility of these explanations, their stability under realistic data perturbations, remains unquantified. This paper introduces the Credibility Index via Explanation Stability (CIES), a mathematically grounded metric that measures how robust a model's explanations are when subject to realistic business noise. CIES captures whether the reasons behind a prediction remain consistent, not just the prediction itself. The metric employs a rank-weighted distance function that penalizes instability in the most important features disproportionately, reflecting business semantics where changes in top decision drivers are more consequential than changes in marginal features. We evaluate CIES across three datasets (customer churn, credit risk, employee attrition), four tree-based classification models and two data balancing conditions. Results demonstrate that model complexity impacts explanation credibility, class imbalance treatment via SMOTE affects not only predictive performance but also explanation stability, and CIES provides statistically superior discriminative power compared to a uniform baseline metric (p < 0.01 in all 24 configurations). A sensitivity analysis across four noise levels confirms the robustness of the metric itself. These findings offer business practitioners a deployable "credibility warning system" for AI-driven decision support.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system whose molecular mechanisms remain incompletely understood. In this study, we developed an end-to-end machine learning pipeline to analyze transcriptomic data from peripheral blood mononuclear cells and cerebrospinal fluid, integrating both bulk microarray and single-cell RNA sequencing datasets (concentrating on CD4+ and B-cells). After rigorous preprocessing, batch correction, and gene declustering, XGBoost classifiers were trained to distinguish MS patients from healthy controls. Explainable AI tools, namely SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), were employed to identify key genes driving classification, and results were compared with Differential Expression Analysis (DEA). SHAP-prioritized genes were further investigated through interaction networks and pathway enrichment analyses. The models achieved strong performance, particularly in CSF B-cells (AUC=0.94) and microarray (AUC=0.86). SHAP gene selection proved to be complementary to classical DEA. Gene clusters identified across multiple datasets highlighted immune activation, non-canonical immune checkpoints (ITK, CLEC2D, KLRG1, CEACAM1), ribosomal and translational programs, ubiquitin-proteasome regulation, lipid trafficking, and Epstein-Barr virus-related pathways. Our integrative and explainable framework reveals complementary insights beyond conventional analysis and provides novel mechanistic hypotheses and potential biomarkers for MS pathogenesis.