Research Papers

Diabetic retinopathy screening traditionally relies on fundus photography, requiring specialized equipment and expertise often unavailable in primary care and resource limited settings. We developed and validated a deep learning (DL) system for automated diabetic classification using anterior segment ocular imaging a readily accessible alternative utilizing standard photography equipment. The system leverages visible biomarkers in the iris, sclera, and conjunctiva that correlate with systemic diabetic status. We systematically evaluated five contemporary architectures (EfficientNet-V2-S with self-supervised learning (SSL), Vision Transformer, Swin Transformer, ConvNeXt-Base, and ResNet-50) on 2,640 clinically annotated anterior segment images spanning Normal, Controlled Diabetic, and Uncontrolled Diabetic categories. A tailored preprocessing pipeline combining specular reflection mitigation and contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE) was implemented to enhance subtle vascular and textural patterns critical for classification. SSL using SimCLR on domain specific ocular images substantially improved model performance.EfficientNet-V2-S with SSL achieved optimal performance with an F1-score of 98.21%, precision of 97.90%, and recall of 98.55% a substantial improvement over ImageNet only initialization (94.63% F1). Notably, the model attained near perfect precision (100%) for Normal classification, critical for minimizing unnecessary clinical referrals.

Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and extensive feature engineering. In contrast, LLMs excel at processing unstructured text, yet their opaque nature makes their reasoning difficult to evaluate and trust. We argue that the convergence of these fields will lay the foundation for a new paradigm: Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making. We analyze how the synergy of argumentation framework mining, argumentation framework synthesis, and argumentative reasoning enables agents that do not just justify decisions, but engage in dialectical processes where decisions are contestable and revisable -- reasoning with humans rather than for them. This convergence of computational argumentation and LLMs is essential for human-aware, trustworthy AI in high-stakes domains.

Large language models appear to develop internal representations of emotion -- "emotion circuits," "emotion neurons," and structured emotional manifolds have been reported across multiple model families. But every study making these claims uses stimuli signalled by explicit emotion keywords, leaving a fundamental question unanswered: do these circuits detect genuine emotional meaning, or do they detect the word "devastated"? We present the first clinical validity test of emotion circuit claims using mechanistic interpretability methods grounded in clinical psychology -- clinical vignettes that evoke emotions through situational and behavioural cues alone, emotion keywords removed. Across six models (Llama-3.2-1B, Llama-3-8B, Gemma-2-9B; base and instruct variants), we apply four convergent mechanistic interpretability methods -- linear probing, causal activation patching, knockout experiments, and representational geometry -- and discover two dissociable emotion processing mechanisms. Affect reception -- detecting emotionally significant content -- operates with near-perfect accuracy (AUROC 1.000), consistent with early-layer saturation, and replicates across all six models. Emotion categorization -- mapping affect to specific emotion labels -- is partially keyword-dependent, dropping 1-7% without keywords and improving with scale. Causal activation patching confirms keyword-rich and keyword-free stimuli share representational space, transferring affective salience rather than emotion-category identity. These findings falsify the keyword-spotting hypothesis, establish a novel mechanistic dissociation, and introduce clinical stimulus methodology as a rigorous standard for testing emotion processing claims in large language models -- with direct implications for AI safety evaluation and alignment. All stimuli, code, and data are released for replication.

PET theranostics is transforming precision oncology, yet treatment response varies substantially; many patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy (RLT) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) fail to respond, demanding reliable pre-therapy prediction. While LLM-based agents have shown remarkable potential in complex medical diagnosis, their application to PET theranostic outcome prediction remains unexplored, which faces three key challenges: (1) data and knowledge scarcity: RLT was only FDA-approved in 2022, yielding few training cases and insufficient domain knowledge in general LLMs; (2) heterogeneous information integration: robust prediction hinges on structured knowledge extraction from PET/CT, laboratory tests, and free-text clinical documentation; (3) evidence-grounded reasoning: clinical decisions must be anchored in trial evidence rather than LLM hallucinations. In this paper, we present TheraAgent, to our knowledge, the first agentic framework for PET theranostics, with three core innovations: (1) Multi-Expert Feature Extraction with Confidence-Weighted Consensus, where three specialized experts process heterogeneous inputs with uncertainty quantification; (2) Self-Evolving Agentic Memory (SEA-Mem), which learns prognostic patterns from accumulated cases, enabling case-based reasoning from limited data; (3) Evidence-Calibrated Reasoning, integrating a curated theranostics knowledge base to ground predictions in VISION/TheraP trial evidence. Evaluated on 35 real patients and 400 synthetic cases, TheraAgent achieves 75.7% overall accuracy on real patients and 87.0% on synthetic cases, outperforming MDAgents and MedAgent-Pro by over 20%. These results highlight a promising blueprint for trustworthy AI agents in PET theranostics, enabling trial-calibrated, multi-source decision support. Code will be released upon acceptance.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly embedded in high-stakes decision environments, yet many governance approaches focus primarily on policy guidance rather than operational stability mechanisms. As AI deployments scale, organizations require governance architectures capable of maintaining reliable, auditable, and accountable behavior over time. This paper introduces the AI Governance Control Stack for Operational Stability, a layered governance architecture designed to ensure traceable and resilient AI system behavior. The proposed control stack integrates six complementary governance layers: system-of-record version governance, evidence-based verification, decision-time explainability logging, telemetry monitoring, model drift detection, and governance escalation. Together, these layers provide a structured mechanism for preserving governance integrity across the AI lifecycle while enabling organizations to detect instability, respond to emerging risks, and maintain regulatory accountability. The architecture aligns operational governance practices with emerging regulatory and standards frameworks, including the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management Systems, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. By combining explainability infrastructure with continuous monitoring and human oversight mechanisms, the governance control stack provides a practical blueprint for achieving hardened AI governance in complex enterprise environments. The paper contributes a conceptual governance architecture and a framework alignment analysis demonstrating how operational stability mechanisms can strengthen responsible AI implementation. The findings suggest that organizations must move beyond static policy frameworks toward integrated governance control systems capable of sustaining trustworthy AI operation in dynamic environments.

Concerns persist regarding the capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to sway political views. Although prior research has claimed that LLMs are not more persuasive than standard political campaign practices, the recent rise of frontier models warrants further study. In two survey experiments (N=19,145) across bipartisan issues and stances, we evaluate seven state-of-the-art LLMs developed by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and xAI. We find that LLMs outperform standard campaign advertisements, with heterogeneity in performance across models. Specifically, Claude models exhibit the highest persuasiveness, while Grok exhibits the lowest. The results are robust across issues and stances. Moreover, in contrast to the findings in Hackenburg et al. (2025b) and Lin et al. (2025) that information-based prompts boost persuasiveness, we find that the effectiveness of information-based prompts is model-dependent: they increase the persuasiveness of Claude and Grok while substantially reducing that of GPT. We introduce a data-driven and strategy-agnostic LLM-assisted conversation analysis approach to identify and assess underlying persuasive strategies. Our work benchmarks the persuasive risks of frontier models and provides a framework for cross-model comparative risk assessment.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents have evolved from passive predictive tools into active entities capable of autonomous decision-making and environmental interaction, driven by the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, this evolution has introduced critical security vulnerabilities that existing frameworks fail to address. The Hierarchical Autonomy Evolution (HAE) framework organizes agent security into three tiers: Cognitive Autonomy (L1) targets internal reasoning integrity; Execution Autonomy (L2) covers tool-mediated environmental interaction; Collective Autonomy (L3) addresses systemic risks in multi-agent ecosystems. We present a taxonomy of threats spanning cognitive manipulation, physical environment disruption, and multi-agent systemic failures, and evaluate existing defenses while identifying key research gaps. The findings aim to guide the development of multilayered, autonomy-aware defense architectures for trustworthy AI agent systems.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based coding agents show promise in automating software development tasks, yet they frequently fail in ways that are difficult for developers to understand and debug. While general-purpose LLMs like GPT can provide ad-hoc explanations of failures, raw execution traces remain challenging to interpret even for experienced developers. We present a systematic explainable AI (XAI) approach that transforms raw agent execution traces into structured, human-interpretable explanations. Our method consists of three key components: (1) a domain-specific failure taxonomy derived from analyzing real agent failures, (2) an automatic annotation system that classifies failures using defined annotation schema, (3) a hybrid explanation generator that produces visual execution flows, natural language explanations, and actionable recommendations. Through a user study with 20 participants (10 technical, 10 non-technical), we demonstrate that our approach enables users to identify failure root causes 2.8 times faster and propose correct fixes with 73% higher accuracy compared to raw execution traces. Importantly, our structured approach outperforms ad-hoc state of the art models explanations by providing consistent, domain-specific insights with integrated visualizations. Our work establishes a framework for systematic agent failure analysis, addressing the critical need for interpretable AI systems in software development workflows

Accurate fault detection in high-dimensional industrial environments remains a major challenge due to the inherent complexity, noise, and redundancy in sensor data. This paper introduces CLAIRE, i.e., a hybrid end-to-end learning framework that integrates unsupervised deep representation learning with supervised classification for intelligent quality control in smart manufacturing systems. It employs an optimized deep autoencoder to transform raw input into a compact latent space, effectively capturing the intrinsic data structure while suppressing irrelevant or noisy features. The learned representations are then fed into a downstream classifier to perform binary fault prediction. Experimental results on a high-dimensional dataset demonstrate that CLAIRE significantly outperforms conventional classifiers trained directly on raw features. Moreover, the framework incorporates a post hoc phase, using a game-theory-based interpretability technique, to analyze the latent space and identify the most informative input features contributing to fault predictions. The proposed framework highlights the potential of integrating explainable AI with feature-aware regularization for robust fault detection. The modular and interpretable nature of the proposed framework makes it highly adaptable, offering promising applications in other domains characterized by complex, high-dimensional data, such as healthcare, finance, and environmental monitoring.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to enhance the transparency and accountability of machine learning systems, yet most methods follow a one-size-fits-all paradigm that neglects user differences in expertise, goals, and cognitive needs. Although Large Language Models can translate technical explanations into natural language, they introduce challenges related to faithfulness and hallucinations. To address these challenges, we present PONTE (Personalized Orchestration for Natural language Trustworthy Explanations), a human-in-the-loop framework for adaptive and reliable XAI narratives. PONTE models personalization as a closed-loop validation and adaptation process rather than prompt engineering. It combines: (i) a low-dimensional preference model capturing stylistic requirements; (ii) a preference-conditioned generator grounded in structured XAI artifacts; and (iii) verification modules enforcing numerical faithfulness, informational completeness, and stylistic alignment, optionally supported by retrieval-grounded argumentation. User feedback iteratively updates the preference state, enabling quick personalization. Automatic and human evaluations across healthcare and finance domains show that the verification-refinement loop substantially improves completeness and stylistic alignment over validation-free generation. Human studies further confirm strong agreement between intended preference vectors and perceived style, robustness to generation stochasticity, and consistently positive quality assessments.

Older adults are increasingly turning to conversational AI for emotional expression. While prior research has examined general attitudes toward AI companionship, little is known about the specific moments when and why older adults choose AI over close others for emotional support. This study addresses this gap by examining the moment-level conditions that shape these decisions in everyday life. Drawing on interviews with 18 older adults, we identify three contextual factors: temporal unavailability of human contacts, relational considerations around burden and evaluation, and self-presentation concerns tied to dignity and face-saving. Our findings reveal how age-related needs for independence, dignity, and valued self-presentation shape these everyday decisions. This work shifts attention from general patterns of AI use to the moment-level circumstances in which emotionally supportive engagement emerges. By foregrounding these situated dynamics, we provide an empirical foundation for context-sensitive responsible AI design and future research on emotional support-seeking in later life.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) transfer visual and textual data into a shared embedding space. In so doing, they enable a wide range of multimodal tasks, while also raising critical questions about the nature of machine 'understanding.' In this paper, we examine how Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods can render the visual reasoning of a VLM - namely, CLIP - legible in art-historical contexts. To this end, we evaluate seven methods, combining zero-shot localization experiments with human interpretability studies. Our results indicate that, while these methods capture some aspects of human interpretation, their effectiveness hinges on the conceptual stability and representational availability of the examined categories.