Research Papers

This paper contributes a new way to evaluate AI. Much as one might evaluate a machine in terms of its performance at chess, this approach involves evaluating a machine in terms of its performance at a game called "MAD Chairs". At the time of writing, evaluation with this game exposed opportunities to improve Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Qwen and DeepSeek. Furthermore, this paper sets a stage for future innovation in game theory and AI safety by providing an example of success with non-standard approaches to each: studying a game beyond the scope of previous game theoretic tools and mitigating a serious AI safety risk in a way that requires neither determination of values nor their enforcement.

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for journalism, fact-checking and media regulation. While AI offers tools to combat disinformation and enhance media practices, its unregulated use and associated risks necessitate clear policies and collaborative efforts. This policy paper explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for journalism and fact-checking, with a focus on addressing disinformation and fostering responsible AI integration. Using Germany and Ukraine as key case studies, it identifies the challenges posed by disinformation, proposes regulatory and funding strategies, and outlines technical standards to enhance AI adoption in media. The paper offers actionable recommendations to ensure AI's responsible and effective integration into media ecosystems. AI presents significant opportunities to combat disinformation and enhance journalistic practices. However, its implementation lacks cohesive regulation, leading to risks such as bias, transparency issues, and over-reliance on automated systems. In Ukraine, establishing an independent media regulatory framework adapted to its governance is crucial, while Germany can act as a leader in advancing EU-wide collaborations and standards. Together, these efforts can shape a robust AI-driven media ecosystem that promotes accuracy and trust.

Generative AI is radically changing the creative arts, by fundamentally transforming the way we create and interact with cultural artefacts. While offering unprecedented opportunities for artistic expression and commercialisation, this technology also raises ethical, societal, and legal concerns. Key among these are the potential displacement of human creativity, copyright infringement stemming from vast training datasets, and the lack of transparency, explainability, and fairness mechanisms. As generative systems become pervasive in this domain, responsible design is crucial. Whilst previous work has tackled isolated aspects of generative systems (e.g., transparency, evaluation, data), we take a comprehensive approach, grounding these efforts within the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence produced by the High-Level Expert Group on AI appointed by the European Commission - a framework for designing responsible AI systems across seven macro requirements. Focusing on generative music AI, we illustrate how these requirements can be contextualised for the field, addressing trustworthiness across multiple dimensions and integrating insights from the existing literature. We further propose a roadmap for operationalising these contextualised requirements, emphasising interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement. Our work provides a foundation for designing and evaluating responsible music generation systems, calling for collaboration among AI experts, ethicists, legal scholars, and artists. This manuscript is accompanied by a website: https://amresearchlab.github.io/raim-framework/.

There is an overwhelming abundance of works in AI Ethics. This growth is chaotic because of how sudden it is, its volume, and its multidisciplinary nature. This makes difficult to keep track of debates, and to systematically characterize goals, research questions, methods, and expertise required by AI ethicists. In this article, I show that the relation between AI and ethics can be characterized in at least three ways, which correspond to three well-represented kinds of AI ethics: ethics and AI; ethics in AI; ethics of AI. I elucidate the features of these three kinds of AI Ethics, characterize their research questions, and identify the kind of expertise that each kind needs. I also show how certain criticisms to AI ethics are misplaced, as being done from the point of view of one kind of AI ethics, to another kind with different goals. All in all, this work sheds light on the nature of AI ethics, and sets the groundwork for more informed discussions about the scope, methods, and training of AI ethicists.

The so-called algorithmic bias is a hot topic in the decision making process based on Artificial Intelligence, especially when demographics, such as gender, age or ethnic origin, come into play. Frequently, the problem is not only in the algorithm itself, but also in the biased data feeding the algorithm, which is just the reflection of the societal bias. Thus, this `food' given to the algorithm have to be repaired in order to produce unbiased results for all. As a simple, but frequent case, two different subgroups will be considered, the privileged and the unprivileged groups. Assuming that results should not depend on such characteristic dividing the data, the rest of attributes in each group have to be moved (transported) so that its underlying distribution can be considered similar. For doing this, optimal transport (OT) theory is used to effectively transport the values of the features, excluding the sensitive variable, to the so-called {\it Wasserstein barycenter} of the two distributions conditional to each group. An efficient procedure based on the {\it auction algorithm} is adapted for doing so. The transportation is made for the data at hand. If new data arrive then the OT problem has to be solved for the new set gathering previous and incoming data, which is rather inefficient. Alternatively, an implementation of a smooth interpolation procedure called \textit{Extended Total Repair (ExTR)} is proposed, which is one of the main contributions of the paper. The methodology is applied with satisfactory results to simulated biased data as well as to a real case for a German credit dataset used for risk assessment prediction.

This paper introduces AIJIM, the Artificial Intelligence Journalism Integration Model -- a novel framework for integrating real-time AI into environmental journalism. AIJIM combines Vision Transformer-based hazard detection, crowdsourced validation with 252 validators, and automated reporting within a scalable, modular architecture. A dual-layer explainability approach ensures ethical transparency through fast CAM-based visual overlays and optional LIME-based box-level interpretations. Validated in a 2024 pilot on the island of Mallorca using the NamicGreen platform, AIJIM achieved 85.4\% detection accuracy and 89.7\% agreement with expert annotations, while reducing reporting latency by 40\%. Unlike conventional approaches such as Data-Driven Journalism or AI Fact-Checking, AIJIM provides a transferable model for participatory, community-driven environmental reporting, advancing journalism, artificial intelligence, and sustainability in alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the EU AI Act.

OPTIMUS: Predicting Multivariate Outcomes in Alzheimer's Disease Using Multi-modal Data amidst Missing Values

Christelle Schneuwly Diaz, Duy-Thanh Vu, Julien Bodelet +7

Alzheimer's disease, a neurodegenerative disorder, is associated with neural, genetic, and proteomic factors while affecting multiple cognitive and behavioral faculties. Traditional AD prediction largely focuses on univariate disease outcomes, such as disease stages and severity. Multimodal data encode broader disease information than a single modality and may, therefore, improve disease prediction; but they often contain missing values. Recent "deeper" machine learning approaches show promise in improving prediction accuracy, yet the biological relevance of these models needs to be further charted. Integrating missing data analysis, predictive modeling, multimodal data analysis, and explainable AI, we propose OPTIMUS, a predictive, modular, and explainable machine learning framework, to unveil the many-to-many predictive pathways between multimodal input data and multivariate disease outcomes amidst missing values. OPTIMUS first applies modality-specific imputation to uncover data from each modality while optimizing overall prediction accuracy. It then maps multimodal biomarkers to multivariate outcomes using machine-learning and extracts biomarkers respectively predictive of each outcome. Finally, OPTIMUS incorporates XAI to explain the identified multimodal biomarkers. Using data from 346 cognitively normal subjects, 608 persons with mild cognitive impairment, and 251 AD patients, OPTIMUS identifies neural and transcriptomic signatures that jointly but differentially predict multivariate outcomes related to executive function, language, memory, and visuospatial function. Our work demonstrates the potential of building a predictive and biologically explainable machine-learning framework to uncover multimodal biomarkers that capture disease profiles across varying cognitive landscapes. The results improve our understanding of the complex many-to-many pathways in AD.

There are countless examples of how AI can cause harm, and increasing evidence that the public are willing to ascribe blame to the AI itself, regardless of how "illogical" this might seem. This raises the question of whether and how the public might expect AI to be punished for this harm. However, public expectations of the punishment of AI have been vastly underexplored. Understanding these expectations is vital, as the public may feel the lingering effect of harm unless their desire for punishment is satisfied. We synthesise research from psychology, human-computer and -robot interaction, philosophy and AI ethics, and law to highlight how our understanding of this issue is still lacking. We call for an interdisciplinary programme of research to establish how we can best satisfy victims of AI harm, for fear of creating a "satisfaction gap" where legal punishment of AI (or not) fails to meet public expectations.

Obtaining high-quality explanations of a model's output enables developers to identify and correct biases, align the system's behavior with human values, and ensure ethical compliance. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) practitioners rely on specific measures to gauge the quality of such explanations. These measures assess key attributes, such as how closely an explanation aligns with a model's decision process (faithfulness), how accurately it pinpoints the relevant input features (localization), and its consistency across different cases (robustness). Despite providing valuable information, these measures do not fully address a critical practitioner's concern: how does the quality of a given explanation compare to other potential explanations? Traditionally, the quality of an explanation has been assessed by comparing it to a randomly generated counterpart. This paper introduces an alternative: the Quality Gap Estimate (QGE). The QGE method offers a direct comparison to what can be viewed as the `inverse' explanation, one that conceptually represents the antithesis of the original explanation. Our extensive testing across multiple model architectures, datasets, and established quality metrics demonstrates that the QGE method is superior to the traditional approach. Furthermore, we show that QGE enhances the statistical reliability of these quality assessments. This advance represents a significant step toward a more insightful evaluation of explanations that enables a more effective inspection of a model's behavior.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly integrated into critical domains, ensuring their responsible design and continuous development is imperative. Effective AI quality management (QM) requires tools and methodologies that address the complexities of the AI lifecycle. In this paper, we propose an approach for AI lifecycle planning that bridges the gap between generic guidelines and use case-specific requirements (MQG4AI). Our work aims to contribute to the development of practical tools for implementing Responsible AI (RAI) by aligning lifecycle planning with technical, ethical and regulatory demands. Central to our approach is the introduction of a flexible and customizable Methodology based on Quality Gates, whose building blocks incorporate RAI knowledge through information linking along the AI lifecycle in a continuous manner, addressing AIs evolutionary character. For our present contribution, we put a particular emphasis on the Explanation stage during model development, and illustrate how to align a guideline to evaluate the quality of explanations with MQG4AI, contributing to overall Transparency.

Bias issues of neural networks garner significant attention along with its promising advancement. Among various bias issues, mitigating two predominant biases is crucial in advancing fair and trustworthy AI: (1) ensuring neural networks yields even performance across demographic groups, and (2) ensuring algorithmic decision-making does not rely on protected attributes. However, upon the investigation of \pc papers in the relevant literature, we find that there exists a persistent, extensive but under-explored confusion regarding these two types of biases. Furthermore, the confusion has already significantly hampered the clarity of the community and subsequent development of debiasing methodologies. Thus, in this work, we aim to restore clarity by providing two mathematical definitions for these two predominant biases and leveraging these definitions to unify a comprehensive list of papers. Next, we highlight the common phenomena and the possible reasons for the existing confusion. To alleviate the confusion, we provide extensive experiments on synthetic, census, and image datasets, to validate the distinct nature of these biases, distinguish their different real-world manifestations, and evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive list of bias assessment metrics in assessing the mitigation of these biases. Further, we compare these two types of biases from multiple dimensions including the underlying causes, debiasing methods, evaluation protocol, prevalent datasets, and future directions. Last, we provide several suggestions aiming to guide researchers engaged in bias-related work to avoid confusion and further enhance clarity in the community.

Most commonly used non-linear machine learning methods are closed-box models, uninterpretable to humans. The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to develop tools to examine the inner workings of these closed boxes. An often-used model-agnostic approach to XAI involves using simple models as local approximations to produce so-called local explanations; examples of this approach include LIME, SHAP, and SLISEMAP. This paper shows how a large set of local explanations can be reduced to a small "proxy set" of simple models, which can act as a generative global explanation. This reduction procedure, ExplainReduce, can be formulated as an optimisation problem and approximated efficiently using greedy heuristics. We show that, for many problems, as few as five explanations can faithfully emulate the closed-box model and that our reduction procedure is competitive with other model aggregation methods.