Research Papers

AI-driven automation threatens to erode government tax bases, lower living standards, and disempower citizens--risks that mirror the 40-year stagnation of wages during the first industrial revolution. While AI safety research has focused primarily on capability risks, comparatively little work has studied how to mitigate the economic risks of AI. This position paper argues that technical governance researchers should prioritize the study of token taxes: usage-based surcharges on model inference applied at the point of sale. We situate token taxes within previous proposals for robot taxes and identify two key advantages: they are enforceable through existing compute governance infrastructure, and they capture value where AI is used rather than where models are hosted. We then present a research roadmap. For enforcement, we outline a staged audit pipeline--black-box token verification, norm-based tax rates, and white-box audits--and identify open technical problems at each stage. For impact, we highlight the need for economic modeling of cost pass-through and deadweight loss. Finally, we discuss why FLOP taxes may be preferable, token taxes could stifle innovation, and how to prevent AI superpowers from vetoing such measures.

Explainable AI (XAI) has become essential in computer vision to make the decision-making processes of deep learning models transparent. However, current visual explanation (XAI) methods face a critical trade-off between the high fidelity of architecture-specific methods and the broad applicability of universal ones. This often results in abstract or fragmented explanations and makes it difficult to compare explanatory power across diverse model families, such as CNNs and Transformers. This paper introduces the Self-Confidence and Analysis Networks (SCAN), a novel universal framework that overcomes these limitations for both convolutional neural network and transformer architectures. SCAN utilizes an AutoEncoder-based approach to reconstruct features from a model's intermediate layers. Guided by the Information Bottleneck principle, it generates a high-resolution Self-Confidence Map that identifies information-rich regions. Extensive experiments on diverse architectures and datasets demonstrate that SCAN consistently achieves outstanding performance on various quantitative metrics such as AUC-D, Negative AUC, Drop%, and Win%. Qualitatively, it produces significantly clearer, object-focused explanations than existing methods. By providing a unified framework that is both architecturally universal and highly faithful, SCAN enhances model transparency and offers a more reliable tool for understanding the decision-making processes of complex neural networks.

The Perceptual Gap: Why We Need Accessible XAI for Assistive Technologies

Shadab H. Choudhury

Artificial intelligence systems are widely used by people with sensory disabilities, like loss of vision or hearing, to help perceive or navigate the world around them. This includes tasks like describing an image or object they cannot touch, reading documents, automatically captioning speech, and so on. Presently, models used for these tasks are based on deep neural networks and are thusly black boxes. Explainable AI (XAI) describes methods that can explain why a model gave the output it did. However, existing XAI methodologies are rarely accessible or designed with disabled users in mind. In this paper, we survey existing work in XAI with a focus on human-centered and accessibility-centered approaches or evaluations. We show that there is next-to-no XAI work that accounts for people with sensory disabilities, that many typical explanations are difficult for them to comprehend, and propose possible avenues for future work in Accessible Human-Centered XAI.

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping how students imagine, explore, and prepare for STEM careers across K-16 education. As AI systems increasingly influence feedback, advising, and access to information about opportunities, they are becoming part of the developmental infrastructure that shapes career identity formation and readiness. Yet uncertainty remains about how AI-supported career exploration tools should be designed, governed, and evaluated at scale, particularly across developmental stages and institutional contexts. This half-day workshop convenes researchers, educators, practitioners, and policymakers to examine responsible AI for STEM career development. We focus on four themes: (1) how AI reshapes definitions and assessment of STEM career readiness; (2) appropriate roles and boundaries for AI in career decision-making; (3) developmental alignment of AI supports across the K-16 continuum; and (4) equity-related design considerations that prevent the reproduction of structural disparities. Through lightning talks, structured group activities, and cross-sector dialogue, participants will surface design tensions, articulate governance principles, and identify research gaps. The workshop aims to advance shared language and actionable frameworks for responsible, developmentally grounded AI use in STEM career learning at scale.

Skin tone classification is a fundamental task in computer vision, with applications in quantifying medical features, assessing demographic representativeness, and mitigating algorithmic bias. However, existing datasets either rely on a restrictive 6-tone Fitzpatrick scale, prohibit training through restrictive licenses, or lack representation of extreme skin tones, while current methods often fail to disentangle true skin tone from in-the-wild imaging conditions, degrading to random-classifier performance. We introduce skin tone in the wild (STW), the first open-access dataset annotated with the 10-tone Monk Skin Tone (MST) scale, containing over 42K images and specifically curated to include underrepresented tones. Alongside a rigorous evaluation protocol, we propose SkinToneNet, a ViT-based model that leverages global image context for robust in-the-wild generalization. Experiments show that SkinToneNet achieves 90% weighted off-by-one accuracy, substantially outperforming prior baselines. We further use SkinToneNet to audit widely used face datasets, including CelebA and VGGFace2, revealing substantial representation imbalances across MST tones.

Our analysis of recent AI4H publications reveals that, despite a trend toward utilizing open datasets and sharing modeling code, 74% of AI4H papers still rely on private datasets or do not share their code. This is especially concerning in healthcare applications, where trust is essential. Furthermore, inconsistent and poorly documented data preprocessing pipelines result in variable model performance reports, even for identical tasks and datasets, making it challenging to evaluate the true effectiveness of AI models. Despite the challenges posed by the reproducibility crisis, addressing these issues through open practices offers substantial benefits. For instance, while the reproducibility mandate adds extra effort to research and publication, it significantly enhances the impact of the work. Our analysis shows that papers that used both public datasets and shared code received, on average, 110% more citations than those that do neither--more than doubling the citation count. Given the clear benefits of enhancing reproducibility, it is imperative for the AI4H community to take concrete steps to overcome existing barriers. The community should promote open science practices, establish standardized guidelines for data preprocessing, and develop robust benchmarks. Tackling these challenges through open-source development can improve reproducibility, which is essential for ensuring that AI models are safe, effective, and beneficial for patient care. This approach will help build more trustworthy AI systems that can be integrated into healthcare settings, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and advancing the field of medicine.

Extended Empirical Validation of the Explainability Solution Space

Antoni Mestre, Manoli Albert, Miriam Gil +1

This technical report provides an extended validation of the Explainability Solution Space (ESS) through cross-domain evaluation. While initial validation focused on employee attrition prediction, this study introduces a heterogeneous intelligent urban resource allocation system to demonstrate the generality and domain-independence of the ESS framework. The second case study integrates tabular, temporal, and geospatial data under multi-stakeholder governance conditions. Explicit quantitative positioning of representative XAI families is provided for both contexts. Results confirm that ESS rankings are not domain-specific but adapt systematically to governance roles, risk profiles, and stakeholder configurations. The findings reinforce ESS as a generalizable operational decision-support instrument for explainable AI strategy design across socio-technical systems.

In this paper, we provide a theoretically grounded and computationally efficient alternative to SHAP. To this end, we study feature attribution through the lens of cooperative game theory by formulating a class of XAI--TU games. Building on this formulation, we investigate equal-surplus-type and proportional-allocation-type attribution rules and propose a low-cost attribution rule, ESENSC_rev2, constructed by combining two polynomial-time closed-form rules while ensuring the null-player property in the XAI--TU domain. Extensive experiments on tabular prediction tasks demonstrate that ESENSC_rev2 closely approximates exact SHAP while substantially improving scalability as the number of features increases. These empirical results indicate that equal-surplus-type attribution rules can achieve favorable trade-offs between computational cost and approximation accuracy in high-dimensional explainability settings. To provide theoretical foundations for these findings, we establish an axiomatic characterization showing that ESENSC_rev2 is uniquely determined by efficiency, the null-player axiom, a restricted differential marginality principle, an intermediate inessential-game property, and axioms that reduce computational requirements. Our results suggest that axiomatically justified and computationally efficient attribution rules can serve as practical and theoretically principled substitutes for SHAP-based approximations in modern explainability pipelines.

The persistent militarization of large reasoning models stems not from technical necessity but from governance arrangements that strip researchers of meaningful authority to refuse harmful transfers and deployments. Existing accountability mechanisms such as model cards and responsible AI statements operate as reputational signals detached from decision making architecture. We identify institutional veto power as a missing governance primitive: a formal authority to halt subsequent use or distribution of research when credible risks of weaponization emerge. Drawing on precedents in nuclear nonproliferation and biomedical ethics, the paper maps unprotected veto points across the research lifecycle, diagnose why compliance without enforceable constraints fails, and offer concrete institutional designs that embed veto authority while reducing the risk of political capture. The paper argues that communities most vulnerable to military uses must lead governance design, and that institutional veto power is a prerequisite for converting symbolic safeguards into enforceable responsibility and for achieving meaningful model disarmament.

ReasonX: Declarative Reasoning on Explanations

Laura State, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini

Explaining opaque Machine Learning (ML) models has become an increasingly important challenge. However, current eXplanation in AI (XAI) methods suffer several shortcomings, including insufficient abstraction, limited user interactivity, and inadequate integration of symbolic knowledge. We propose ReasonX, an explanation tool based on expressions (or, queries) in a closed algebra of operators over theories of linear constraints. ReasonX provides declarative and interactive explanations for decision trees, which may represent the ML models under analysis or serve as global or local surrogate models for any black-box predictor. Users can express background or common sense knowledge as linear constraints. This allows for reasoning at multiple levels of abstraction, ranging from fully specified examples to under-specified or partially constrained ones. ReasonX leverages Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) to reason over the features of factual and contrastive instances. We present here the architecture of ReasonX, which consists of a Python layer, closer to the user, and a Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) layer, which implements a meta-interpreter of the query algebra. The capabilities of ReasonX are demonstrated through qualitative examples, and compared to other XAI tools through quantitative experiments.

Meta-research and Trustworthy AI (TAI) share common goals, namely improving evidence, robustness, and transparency, yet there is very little interplay between the two fields. To investigate the potential benefits of closer collaboration between the domains of TAI in healthcare and meta-research, we convened an interdisciplinary workshop funded by the Volkswagen Foundation in February 2025. The workshop aimed to collaboratively examine key challenges in translating AI ethics principles into practice and to identify potential solutions informed by meta-research approaches. A Design Thinking-informed co-creation approach was followed by an inductive descriptive analysis of the outputs. Our results demonstrate how meta-research can offer concrete contributions to address pressing challenges of TAI in healthcare. These challenges include the dynamic and complex nature of TAI ethical requirements and principles, common terminology and understanding of TAI, ensuring robustness, replicability, and reproducibility, choosing adequate evaluation metrics, lack of transparency, advancing preclinical biomedical research, and validation in real-world clinical environments. We present a catalog of ideas and a roadmap for future research, which synthesize existing interconnections and identify concrete next steps and open research gaps, thereby serving as a foundation for future interdisciplinary efforts.

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly shifted from peripheral assistive tools to constant companions in everyday and even high stakes human decision making. Many users now consult these models about health, intimate relationships, finance, education, and identity, because LLMs are, in practice, multi domain, inexpensive, always available, and seemingly nonjudgmental. At the same time, from a technical perspective these models rely on transformer architectures, exhibit highly unpredictable behavior in detail, and are fundamentally stateless; conceptually, they lack any real subjectivity, intention, or responsibility. This article argues that the combination of this technical architecture with the social position of LLMs as multis pecialist counselors in an age of human loneliness produces a new kind of advisory intimacy without a subject. In this new relation, model outputs are experienced as if they contained deep understanding, neutrality, emotional support, and user level control, while at the deeper level there is no human agent who is straightforwardly responsible or answerable. By reviewing dominant strands of AI ethics critique, we show that focusing only on developer liability, data bias, or emotional attachment to chatbots is insufficient to capture this configuration. We then explore the ethical and political implications of this advisory intimacy without a subject for policy-making, for justice in access to counseling, and for how we understand loneliness in the contemporary world.