Research Papers

Concept-based eXplainable AI (C-XAI) is a rapidly growing research field that enhances AI model interpretability by leveraging intermediate, human-understandable concepts. This approach not only enhances model transparency but also enables human intervention, allowing users to interact with these concepts to refine and improve the model's performance. Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) explicitly predict concepts before making final decisions, enabling interventions to correct misclassified concepts. While CBMs remain effective in Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) settings with intervention, they struggle to match the performance of black-box models. Concept Embedding Models (CEMs) address this by learning concept embeddings from both concept predictions and input data, enhancing In-Distribution (ID) accuracy but reducing the effectiveness of interventions, especially in OOD scenarios. In this work, we propose the Variational Concept Embedding Model (V-CEM), which leverages variational inference to improve intervention responsiveness in CEMs. We evaluated our model on various textual and visual datasets in terms of ID performance, intervention responsiveness in both ID and OOD settings, and Concept Representation Cohesiveness (CRC), a metric we propose to assess the quality of the concept embedding representations. The results demonstrate that V-CEM retains CEM-level ID performance while achieving intervention effectiveness similar to CBM in OOD settings, effectively reducing the gap between interpretability (intervention) and generalization (performance).

Model documentation plays a crucial role in promoting transparency and responsible development of AI systems. With the rise of Generative AI (GenAI), open-source platforms have increasingly become hubs for hosting and distributing these models, prompting platforms like Hugging Face to develop dedicated model documentation guidelines that align with responsible AI principles. Despite these growing efforts, there remains a lack of understanding of how developers document their GenAI models on open-source platforms. Through interviews with 13 GenAI developers active on open-source platforms, we provide empirical insights into their documentation practices and challenges. Our analysis reveals that despite existing resources, developers of GenAI models still face multiple layers of uncertainties in their model documentation: (1) uncertainties about what specific content should be included; (2) uncertainties about how to effectively report key components of their models; and (3) uncertainties in deciding who should take responsibilities for various aspects of model documentation. Based on our findings, we discuss the implications for policymakers, open-source platforms, and the research community to support meaningful, effective and actionable model documentation in the GenAI era, including cultivating better community norms, building robust evaluation infrastructures, and clarifying roles and responsibilities.

Given the broad adoption of artificial intelligence, it is essential to provide evidence that AI models are reliable, trustable, and fair. To this end, the emerging field of eXplainable AI develops techniques to probe such requirements, counterbalancing the hype pushing the pervasiveness of this technology. Among the many facets of this issue, this paper focuses on baseline attribution methods, aiming at deriving a feature attribution map at the network input relying on a "neutral" stimulus usually called "baseline". The choice of the baseline is crucial as it determines the explanation of the network behavior. In this framework, this paper has the twofold goal of shedding light on the implications of the choice of the baseline and providing a simple yet effective method for identifying the best baseline for the task. To achieve this, we propose a decision boundary sampling method, since the baseline, by definition, lies on the decision boundary, which naturally becomes the search domain. Experiments are performed on synthetic examples and validated relying on state-of-the-art methods. Despite being limited to the experimental scope, this contribution is relevant as it offers clear guidelines and a simple proxy for baseline selection, reducing ambiguity and enhancing deep models' reliability and trust.

Road fatalities pose significant public safety and health challenges worldwide, with pedestrians being particularly vulnerable in vehicle-pedestrian crashes due to disparities in physical and performance characteristics. This study employs explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to identify key factors contributing to pedestrian fatalities across the five U.S. states with the highest crash rates (2018-2022). It compares them to the five states with the lowest fatality rates. Using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the study applies machine learning techniques-including Decision Trees, Gradient Boosting Trees, Random Forests, and XGBoost-to predict contributing factors to pedestrian fatalities. To address data imbalance, the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) is utilized, while SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values enhance model interpretability. The results indicate that age, alcohol and drug use, location, and environmental conditions are significant predictors of pedestrian fatalities. The XGBoost model outperformed others, achieving a balanced accuracy of 98 %, accuracy of 90 %, precision of 92 %, recall of 90 %, and an F1 score of 91 %. Findings reveal that pedestrian fatalities are more common in mid-block locations and areas with poor visibility, with older adults and substance-impaired individuals at higher risk. These insights can inform policymakers and urban planners in implementing targeted safety measures, such as improved lighting, enhanced pedestrian infrastructure, and stricter traffic law enforcement, to reduce fatalities and improve public safety.

Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative model training while preserving data privacy; however, balancing privacy preservation (PP) and fairness poses significant challenges. In this paper, we present the first unified large-scale empirical study of privacy-fairness-utility trade-offs in FL, advancing toward responsible AI deployment. Specifically, we systematically compare Differential Privacy (DP), Homomorphic Encryption (HE), and Secure Multi-Party Computation (SMC) with fairness-aware optimizers including q-FedAvg, q-MAML, Ditto, evaluating their performance under IID and non-IID scenarios using benchmark (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST) and real-world datasets (Alzheimer's MRI, credit-card fraud detection). Our analysis reveals HE and SMC significantly outperform DP in achieving equitable outcomes under data skew, although at higher computational costs. Remarkably, we uncover unexpected interactions: DP mechanisms can negatively impact fairness, and fairness-aware optimizers can inadvertently reduce privacy effectiveness. We conclude with practical guidelines for designing robust FL systems that deliver equitable, privacy-preserving, and accurate outcomes.

The rapid advancement of AI systems has raised widespread concerns about potential harms of frontier AI systems and the need for responsible evaluation and oversight. In this position paper, we argue that frontier AI companies should report both pre- and post-mitigation safety evaluations to enable informed policy decisions. Evaluating models at both stages provides policymakers with essential evidence to regulate deployment, access, and safety standards. We show that relying on either in isolation can create a misleading picture of model safety. Our analysis of AI safety disclosures from leading frontier labs identifies three critical gaps: (1) companies rarely evaluate both pre- and post-mitigation versions, (2) evaluation methods lack standardization, and (3) reported results are often too vague to inform policy. To address these issues, we recommend mandatory disclosure of pre- and post-mitigation capabilities to approved government bodies, standardized evaluation methods, and minimum transparency requirements for public safety reporting. These ensure that policymakers and regulators can craft targeted safety measures, assess deployment risks, and scrutinize companies' safety claims effectively.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning enhances large language models (LLMs) by decomposing complex problems into step-by-step solutions, improving performance on reasoning tasks. However, current CoT disclosure policies vary widely across different models in frontend visibility, API access, and pricing strategies, lacking a unified policy framework. This paper analyzes the dual-edged implications of full CoT disclosure: while it empowers small-model distillation, fosters trust, and enables error diagnosis, it also risks violating intellectual property, enabling misuse, and incurring operational costs. We propose a tiered-access policy framework that balances transparency, accountability, and security by tailoring CoT availability to academic, business, and general users through ethical licensing, structured reasoning outputs, and cross-tier safeguards. By harmonizing accessibility with ethical and operational considerations, this framework aims to advance responsible AI deployment while mitigating risks of misuse or misinterpretation.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to a wide range of predictions about its long-term impact on humanity. A central focus is the potential emergence of transformative AI (TAI), eventually capable of outperforming humans in all economically valuable tasks and fully automating labor. Discussed scenarios range from unprecedented economic growth and abundance ("post-scarcity" or "cornucopia") to human extinction after a misaligned TAI takes over ("AI doom"). However, the probabilities and implications of these scenarios remain highly uncertain. We contribute by organizing the various scenarios and evaluating their associated existential risks and economic outcomes in terms of aggregate welfare. Our results imply that even low-probability catastrophic outcomes justify substantial investments in AI safety and alignment research. This result highlights that current global efforts in AI safety and alignment research are insufficient relative to the scale and urgency of the risks posed by TAI.

Explainable AI is a crucial component for edge services, as it ensures reliable decision making based on complex AI models. Surrogate models are a prominent approach of XAI where human-interpretable models, such as a linear regression model, are trained to approximate a complex (black-box) model's predictions. This paper delves into the balance between the predictive accuracy of complex AI models and their approximation by surrogate ones, advocating that both these models benefit from being learned simultaneously. We derive a joint (bi-level) training scheme for both models and we introduce a new algorithm based on multi-objective optimization (MOO) to simultaneously minimize both the complex model's prediction error and the error between its outputs and those of the surrogate. Our approach leads to improvements that exceed 99% in the approximation of the black-box model through the surrogate one, as measured by the metric of Fidelity, for a compromise of less than 3% absolute reduction in the black-box model's predictive accuracy, compared to single-task and multi-task learning baselines. By improving Fidelity, we can derive more trustworthy explanations of the complex model's outcomes from the surrogate, enabling reliable AI applications for intelligent services at the network edge.

AXAI-CDSS : An Affective Explainable AI-Driven Clinical Decision Support System for Cannabis Use

Tongze Zhang, Tammy Chung, Anind Dey +1

As cannabis use has increased in recent years, researchers have come to rely on sophisticated machine learning models to predict cannabis use behavior and its impact on health. However, many artificial intelligence (AI) models lack transparency and interpretability due to their opaque nature, limiting their trust and adoption in real-world medical applications, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS). To address this issue, this paper enhances algorithm explainability underlying CDSS by integrating multiple Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods and applying causal inference techniques to clarify the model' predictive decisions under various scenarios. By providing deeper interpretability of the XAI outputs using Large Language Models (LLMs), we provide users with more personalized and accessible insights to overcome the challenges posed by AI's "black box" nature. Our system dynamically adjusts feedback based on user queries and emotional states, combining text-based sentiment analysis with real-time facial emotion recognition to ensure responses are empathetic, context-adaptive, and user-centered. This approach bridges the gap between the learning demands of interpretability and the need for intuitive understanding, enabling non-technical users such as clinicians and clinical researchers to interact effectively with AI models.} Ultimately, this approach improves usability, enhances perceived trustworthiness, and increases the impact of CDSS in healthcare applications.

Generative AI is frequently portrayed as revolutionary or even apocalyptic, prompting calls for novel regulatory approaches. This essay argues that such views are misguided. Instead, generative AI should be understood as an evolutionary step in the broader algorithmic media landscape, alongside search engines and social media. Like these platforms, generative AI centralizes information control, relies on complex algorithms to shape content, and extensively uses user data, thus perpetuating common problems: unchecked corporate power, echo chambers, and weakened traditional gatekeepers. Regulation should therefore share a consistent objective: ensuring media institutions remain trustworthy. Without trust, public discourse risks fragmenting into isolated communities dominated by comforting, tribal beliefs -- a threat intensified by generative AI's capacity to bypass gatekeepers and personalize truth. Current governance frameworks, such as the EU's AI Act and the US Executive Order 14110, emphasize reactive risk mitigation, addressing measurable threats like national security, public health, and algorithmic bias. While effective for novel technological risks, this reactive approach fails to adequately address broader issues of trust and legitimacy inherent to digital media. Proactive regulation fostering transparency, accountability, and public confidence is essential. Viewing generative AI exclusively as revolutionary risks repeating past regulatory failures that left social media and search engines insufficiently regulated. Instead, regulation must proactively shape an algorithmic media environment serving the public good, supporting quality information and robust civic discourse.

Jailbreaking is (Mostly) Simpler Than You Think

Mark Russinovich, Ahmed Salem

We introduce the Context Compliance Attack (CCA), a novel, optimization-free method for bypassing AI safety mechanisms. Unlike current approaches -- which rely on complex prompt engineering and computationally intensive optimization -- CCA exploits a fundamental architectural vulnerability inherent in many deployed AI systems. By subtly manipulating conversation history, CCA convinces the model to comply with a fabricated dialogue context, thereby triggering restricted behavior. Our evaluation across a diverse set of open-source and proprietary models demonstrates that this simple attack can circumvent state-of-the-art safety protocols. We discuss the implications of these findings and propose practical mitigation strategies to fortify AI systems against such elementary yet effective adversarial tactics.