Research Papers

This paper introduces an approach to increasing the explainability of artificial intelligence (AI) systems by embedding Large Language Models (LLMs) within standardized analytical processes. While traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods focus on feature attribution or post-hoc interpretation, the proposed framework integrates LLMs into defined decision models such as Question-Option-Criteria (QOC), Sensitivity Analysis, Game Theory, and Risk Management. By situating LLM reasoning within these formal structures, the approach transforms opaque inference into transparent and auditable decision traces. A layered architecture is presented that separates the reasoning space of the LLM from the explainable process space above it. Empirical evaluations show that the system can reproduce human-level decision logic in decentralized governance, systems analysis, and strategic reasoning contexts. The results suggest that LLM-driven standard processes provide a foundation for reliable, interpretable, and verifiable AI-supported decision making.

Worldwide, suicide is the second leading cause of death for adolescents with past suicide attempts to be an important predictor for increased future suicides. While some people with suicidal thoughts may try to suppress them, many signal their intentions in social media platforms. To address these issues, we propose a new type of hybrid deep learning scheme, i.e., the combination of a CNN architecture and a BiGRU technique, which can accurately identify the patterns of suicidal ideation from SN datasets. Also, we apply Explainable AI methods using SHapley Additive exPlanations to interpret the prediction results and verifying the model reliability. This integration of CNN local feature extraction, BiGRU bidirectional sequence modeling, attention mechanisms, and SHAP interpretability provides a comprehensive framework for suicide detection. Training and evaluation of the system were performed on a publicly available dataset. Several performance metrics were used for evaluating model performance. Our method was found to have achieved 93.97 accuracy in experimental results. Comparative study to different state-of-the-art Machine Learning and DL models and existing literature demonstrates the superiority of our proposed technique over all the competing methods.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that requires rapid detection and treatment to prevent progression to severe sepsis, septic shock, or multi-organ failure. Despite advances in medical technology, it remains a major challenge for clinicians. While recent machine learning models have shown promise in predicting sepsis onset, their black-box nature limits interpretability and clinical trust. In this study, we present an interpretable AI approach for sepsis analysis that integrates machine learning with clinical knowledge. Our method not only delivers accurate predictions of sepsis onset but also enables clinicians to understand, validate, and align model outputs with established medical expertise.

Frontier AI labs face intense commercial competitive pressure to develop increasingly powerful systems, raising the risk of a race to the bottom on safety. Voluntary coordination among labs - including by way of joint safety testing, information sharing, and resource pooling - could reduce catastrophic and existential risks. But the risk of antitrust scrutiny may deter such collaboration, even when it is demonstrably beneficial. This paper explores how U.S. antitrust policy can evolve to accommodate AI safety cooperation without abandoning core competition principles. After outlining the risks of unconstrained AI development and the benefits of lab-lab coordination, the paper analyses potential antitrust concerns, including output restrictions, market allocation, and information sharing. It then surveys a range of legislative and regulatory reforms that could provide legal clarity and safe harbours that will encourage responsible collaboration.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in software engineering tasks such as requirements elicitation, design, and evaluation, raising critical questions regarding their alignment with human judgments on responsible AI values. This study investigates how closely LLMs' value preferences align with those of two human groups: a US-representative sample and AI practitioners. We evaluate 23 LLMs across four tasks: (T1) selecting key responsible AI values, (T2) rating their importance in specific contexts, (T3) resolving trade-offs between competing values, and (T4) prioritizing software requirements that embody those values. The results show that LLMs generally align more closely with AI practitioners than with the US-representative sample, emphasizing fairness, privacy, transparency, safety, and accountability. However, inconsistencies appear between the values that LLMs claim to uphold (Tasks 1-3) and the way they prioritize requirements (Task 4), revealing gaps in faithfulness between stated and applied behavior. These findings highlight the practical risk of relying on LLMs in requirements engineering without human oversight and motivate the need for systematic approaches to benchmark, interpret, and monitor value alignment in AI-assisted software development.

The complexity of human cognition has meant that psychology makes more use of theory and conceptual models than perhaps any other biomedical field. To enable precise quantitative study of the full breadth of phenomena in psychological and psychiatric medicine as well as cognitive aspects of AI safety, there is a need for a mathematical formulation which is both mathematically precise and equally accessible to experts from numerous fields. In this paper we formalize human psychodynamics via the diagrammatic framework of process theory, describe its key properties, and explain the links between a diagrammatic representation and central concepts in analysis of cognitive processes in contexts such as psychotherapy, neurotechnology, AI alignment, AI agent representation of individuals in autonomous negotiations, developing human-like AI systems, and other aspects of AI safety.

Teaching Computer Science (CS) students to comprehend and maintain existing codebases is a critical challenge in software engineering education. Although Generative AI (GenAI) assistants such as GitHub Copilot can improve task completion speed and correctness, their relationship with code comprehension remains unclear. We conducted a within-subjects study with 15 CS graduate students who completed feature-implementation tasks in an unfamiliar codebase with and without Copilot. Despite significant performance improvements with Copilot, participants showed no corresponding improvement in overall comprehension ($p=0.59$), and performance gains were not significantly associated with comprehension gains. Exploratory category-level estimates were positive for identifying what and where to modify ($ρ=0.50$) and negative for explaining how the existing code worked and predicting the effects of a change ($ρ=-0.57$); however, neither remained significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Our behavioral analysis showed that participants with higher comprehension engaged more frequently in verification loops, repeatedly inspecting and revising code. They performed write-then-view transitions 4.7 times more often than participants with lower comprehension ($p=0.001$). These findings show that successful task completion does not reliably indicate code comprehension and suggest that how students engage with AI-generated code may matter for their resulting understanding. We argue for programming education that assesses correctness and comprehension separately, teaches students to inspect and explain AI-generated code, and encourages GenAI tools that support active verification.

BanglaNirTox: A Large-scale Parallel Corpus for Explainable AI in Bengali Text Detoxification

Ayesha Afroza Mohsin, Mashrur Ahsan, Nafisa Maliyat +4

Toxic language in Bengali remains prevalent, especially in online environments, with few effective precautions against it. Although text detoxification has seen progress in high-resource languages, Bengali remains underexplored due to limited resources. In this paper, we propose a novel pipeline for Bengali text detoxification that combines Pareto class-optimized large language models (LLMs) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to generate detoxified sentences. To support this effort, we construct BanglaNirTox, an artificially generated parallel corpus of 68,041 toxic Bengali sentences with class-wise toxicity labels, reasonings, and detoxified paraphrases, using Pareto-optimized LLMs evaluated on random samples. The resulting BanglaNirTox dataset is used to fine-tune language models to produce better detoxified versions of Bengali sentences. Our findings show that Pareto-optimized LLMs with CoT prompting significantly enhance the quality and consistency of Bengali text detoxification.

The translation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems into clinical practice requires bridging fundamental gaps between explainable AI theory, clinician expectations, and governance requirements. While conceptual frameworks define what constitutes explainable AI (XAI) and qualitative studies identify clinician needs, little practical guidance exists for development teams to prepare AI systems prior to clinical evaluation. We propose two foundational design principles, Transparent Design and Operable Design, that operationalize pre-clinical technical requirements for healthcare AI. Transparent Design encompasses interpretability and understandability artifacts that enable case-level reasoning and system traceability. Operable Design encompasses calibration, uncertainty, and robustness to ensure reliable, predictable system behavior under real-world conditions. We ground these principles in established XAI frameworks, map them to documented clinician needs, and demonstrate their alignment with emerging governance requirements. This pre-clinical playbook provides actionable guidance for development teams, accelerates the path to clinical evaluation, and establishes a shared vocabulary bridging AI researchers, healthcare practitioners, and regulatory stakeholders. By explicitly scoping what can be built and verified before clinical deployment, we aim to reduce friction in clinical AI translation while remaining cautious about what constitutes validated, deployed explainability.

The AI we use is powerful, and its power is increasing rapidly. If this powerful AI is to serve the needs of consumers, voters, and decision makers, then it is imperative that the AI is accountable. In general, an agent is accountable to a forum if the forum can request information from the agent about its actions, if the forum and the agent can discuss this information, and if the forum can sanction the agent. Unfortunately, in too many cases today's AI is not accountable -- we cannot question it, enter into a discussion with it, let alone sanction it. In this chapter we relate the general definition of accountability to AI, we illustrate what it means for AI to be accountable and unaccountable, and we explore approaches that can improve our chances of living in a world where all AI is accountable to those who are affected by it.

This work tackles a critical challenge in AI safety research under limited compute: given a fixed computation budget, how can one maximize the strength of iterative adversarial attacks? Coarsely reducing the number of attack iterations lowers cost but substantially weakens effectiveness. To fulfill the attainable attack efficacy within a constrained budget, we propose a fine-grained control mechanism that selectively recomputes layer activations across both iteration-wise and layer-wise levels. Extensive experiments show that our method consistently outperforms existing baselines at equal cost. Moreover, when integrated into adversarial training, it attains comparable performance with only 30% of the original budget.

Ensuring transparency and trust in artificial intelligence (AI) models is essential as they are increasingly deployed in safety-critical and high-stakes domains. Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a promising approach to address this challenge; however, the rigorous evaluation of XAI methods remains vital for balancing the trade-offs between model complexity, predictive performance, and interpretability. While substantial progress has been made in evaluating XAI for classification tasks, strategies tailored to semantic segmentation remain limited. Moreover, objectively assessing XAI approaches is difficult, since qualitative visual explanations provide only preliminary insights. Such qualitative methods are inherently subjective and cannot ensure the accuracy or stability of explanations. To address these limitations, this work introduces a comprehensive quantitative evaluation framework for assessing XAI in semantic segmentation, accounting for both spatial and contextual task complexities. The framework systematically integrates pixel-level evaluation strategies with carefully designed metrics to yield fine-grained interpretability insights. Simulation results using recently adapted class activation mapping (CAM)-based XAI schemes demonstrate the efficiency, robustness, and reliability of the proposed methodology. These findings advance the development of transparent, trustworthy, and accountable semantic segmentation models.