Research Papers

University students and working professionals are increasingly encountering generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education and practice, yet their approaches and outcomes differ markedly. This paper proposes an academic study contrasting novice over-reliance on AI with expert augmentation of AI, grounded in two real-world narratives. In one, a university student attempted to outsource learning entirely to AI, eschewing course engagement. In the other, seasoned cybersecurity professionals in the Tradewinds 2025 red/blue team exercise collaboratively employed AI tools to enhance (not replace) their domain expertise. This proposal outlines a comparative research design to investigate how students' perception of AI as a learning replacement versus professionals' use of AI as an expert tool impacts outcomes. Drawing on current literature in educational technology and workplace AI, we examine implications for curriculum design, AI literacy, and assessment reform in higher education. We hypothesize that blind reliance on AI can erode fundamental skills and academic integrity, whereas guided use of AI by knowledgeable users can amplify productivity without sacrificing quality. The paper details methodologies for classroom and workplace data collection, including student and professional surveys, interviews, and performance analyses. Anticipated findings aim to inform responsible AI integration in curricula, balancing innovation with the necessity of domain knowledge. We conclude with recommendations for pedagogical strategies, institutional policies to foster AI literacy, and a call for longitudinal studies tracking how AI usage during university affects professional competencies over time.

While eXplainable AI (XAI) has advanced significantly, few methods address interpretability in embedded vector spaces where dimensions represent complex abstractions. We introduce Distance Explainer, a novel method for generating local, post-hoc explanations of embedded spaces in machine learning models. Our approach adapts saliency-based techniques from RISE to explain the distance between two embedded data points by assigning attribution values through selective masking and distance-ranked mask filtering. We evaluate Distance Explainer on cross-modal embeddings (image-image and image-caption pairs) using established XAI metrics including Faithfulness, Sensitivity/Robustness, and Randomization. Experiments with ImageNet and CLIP models demonstrate that our method effectively identifies features contributing to similarity or dissimilarity between embedded data points while maintaining high robustness and consistency. We also explore how parameter tuning, particularly mask quantity and selection strategy, affects explanation quality. This work addresses a critical gap in XAI research and enhances transparency and trustworthiness in deep learning applications utilizing embedded spaces.

The objective of this proposal is to bridge the gap between Deep Learning (DL) and System Dynamics (SD) by developing an interpretable neural system dynamics framework. While DL excels at learning complex models and making accurate predictions, it lacks interpretability and causal reliability. Traditional SD approaches, on the other hand, provide transparency and causal insights but are limited in scalability and require extensive domain knowledge. To overcome these limitations, this project introduces a Neural System Dynamics pipeline, integrating Concept-Based Interpretability, Mechanistic Interpretability, and Causal Machine Learning. This framework combines the predictive power of DL with the interpretability of traditional SD models, resulting in both causal reliability and scalability. The efficacy of the proposed pipeline will be validated through real-world applications of the EU-funded AutoMoTIF project, which is focused on autonomous multimodal transportation systems. The long-term goal is to collect actionable insights that support the integration of explainability and safety in autonomous systems.

This paper elaborates on the concept of moral exercises as a means to help AI actors cultivate virtues that enable effective human oversight of AI systems. We explore the conceptual framework and significance of moral exercises, situating them within the contexts of philosophical discourse, ancient practices, and contemporary AI ethics scholarship. We outline the core pillars of the moral exercises methodology - eliciting an engaged personal disposition, fostering relational understanding, and cultivating technomoral wisdom - and emphasize their relevance to key activities and competencies essential for human oversight of AI systems. Our argument is supported by findings from three pilot studies involving a company, a multidisciplinary team of AI researchers, and higher education students. These studies allow us to explore both the potential and the limitations of moral exercises. Based on the collected data, we offer insights into how moral exercises can foster a responsible AI culture within organizations, and suggest directions for future research.

Machine learning models achieve high precision, but their decision-making processes often lack explainability. Furthermore, as model complexity increases, explainability typically decreases. Existing efforts to improve explainability primarily involve developing new eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques or incorporating explainability constraints during training. While these approaches yield specific improvements, their applicability remains limited. In this work, we propose the Vision Transformer with artificial Astrocytes (ViTA). This training-free approach is inspired by neuroscience and enhances the reasoning of a pretrained deep neural network to generate more human-aligned explanations. We evaluated our approach employing two well-known XAI techniques, Grad-CAM and Grad-CAM++, and compared it to a standard Vision Transformer (ViT). Using the ClickMe dataset, we quantified the similarity between the heatmaps produced by the XAI techniques and a (human-aligned) ground truth. Our results consistently demonstrate that incorporating artificial astrocytes enhances the alignment of model explanations with human perception, leading to statistically significant improvements across all XAI techniques and metrics utilized.

Adapting to the addressee is crucial for successful explanations, yet poses significant challenges for dialogsystems. We adopt the approach of treating explanation generation as a non-stationary decision process, where the optimal strategy varies according to changing beliefs about the explainee and the interaction context. In this paper we address the questions of (1) how to track the interaction context and the relevant listener features in a formally defined computational partner model, and (2) how to utilize this model in the dynamically adjusted, rational decision process that determines the currently best explanation strategy. We propose a Bayesian inference-based approach to continuously update the partner model based on user feedback, and a non-stationary Markov Decision Process to adjust decision-making based on the partner model values. We evaluate an implementation of this framework with five simulated interlocutors, demonstrating its effectiveness in adapting to different partners with constant and even changing feedback behavior. The results show high adaptivity with distinct explanation strategies emerging for different partners, highlighting the potential of our approach to improve explainable AI systems and dialogsystems in general.

As machine learning is increasingly applied in an online fashion to deal with evolving data streams, the fairness of these algorithms is a matter of growing ethical and legal concern. In many use cases, class imbalance in the data also needs to be dealt with to ensure predictive performance. Current fairness-aware stream learners typically attempt to solve these issues through in- or post-processing by focusing on optimizing one specific discrimination metric, addressing class imbalance in a separate processing step. While C-SMOTE is a highly effective model-agnostic pre-processing approach to mitigate class imbalance, as a side effect of this method, algorithmic bias is often introduced. Therefore, we propose CFSMOTE - a fairness-aware, continuous SMOTE variant - as a pre-processing approach to simultaneously address the class imbalance and fairness concerns by employing situation testing and balancing fairness-relevant groups during oversampling. Unlike other fairness-aware stream learners, CFSMOTE is not optimizing for only one specific fairness metric, therefore avoiding potentially problematic trade-offs. Our experiments show significant improvement on several common group fairness metrics in comparison to vanilla C-SMOTE while maintaining competitive performance, also in comparison to other fairness-aware algorithms.

From What Ifs to Insights: Counterfactuals in Causal Inference vs. Explainable AI

Galit Shmueli, David Martens, Jaewon Yoo +1

Counterfactuals play a pivotal role in the two distinct data science fields of causal inference (CI) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). While the core idea behind counterfactuals remains the same in both fields--the examination of what would have happened under different circumstances--there are key differences in how they are used and interpreted. We introduce a formal definition that encompasses the multi-faceted concept of the counterfactual in CI and XAI. We then discuss how counterfactuals are used, evaluated, generated, and operationalized in CI vs. XAI, highlighting conceptual and practical differences. By comparing and contrasting the two, we hope to identify opportunities for cross-fertilization across CI and XAI.

As large language models (LLMs) achieve advanced persuasive capabilities, concerns about their potential risks have grown. The EU AI Act prohibits AI systems that use manipulative or deceptive techniques to undermine informed decision-making, highlighting the need to distinguish between rational persuasion, which engages reason, and manipulation, which exploits cognitive biases. My dissertation addresses the lack of empirical studies in this area by developing a taxonomy of persuasive techniques, creating a human-annotated dataset, and evaluating LLMs' ability to distinguish between these methods. This work contributes to AI safety by providing resources to mitigate the risks of persuasive AI and fostering discussions on ethical persuasion in the age of generative AI.

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into software development processes, the prevalence and sophistication of AI-generated code continue to expand rapidly. This study addresses the critical need for transparency and safety in AI generated code by examining the current landscape, identifying potential risks, and exploring future implications. We analyze market opportunities for detecting AI-generated code, discuss the challenges associated with managing increasing complexity, and propose solutions to enhance transparency and functionality analysis. Furthermore, this study investigates the longterm implications of AI generated code, including its potential role in the development of artificial general intelligence and its impact on human AI interaction. In conclusion, we emphasize the importance of proactive measures for ensuring the responsible development and deployment of AI in software engineering.

Deep learning-based AI models have been extensively applied in genomics, achieving remarkable success across diverse applications. As these models gain prominence, there exists an urgent need for interpretability methods to establish trustworthiness in model-driven decisions. For genetic researchers, interpretable insights derived from these models hold significant value in providing novel perspectives for understanding biological processes. Current interpretability analyses in genomics predominantly rely on intuition and experience rather than rigorous theoretical foundations. In this review, we systematically categorize interpretability methods into input-based and model-based approaches, while critically evaluating their limitations through concrete biological application scenarios. Furthermore, we establish theoretical underpinnings to elucidate the origins of these constraints through formal mathematical demonstrations, aiming to assist genetic researchers in better understanding and designing models in the future. Finally, we provide feasible suggestions for future research on interpretability in the field of genetics.

The explanation of AI results and how they are received by users is an increasingly active research field. However, there is a surprising lack of knowledge about how social factors such as emotions affect the process of explanation by a decision support system (DSS). While previous research has shown effects of emotions on DSS supported decision-making, it remains unknown in how far emotions affect cognitive processing during an explanation. In this study, we, therefore, investigated the influence of prior emotions and task-related arousal on the retention and understanding of explained feature relevance. To investigate the influence of prior emotions, we induced happiness and fear prior to the decision support interaction. Before emotion induction, user characteristics to assess their risk type were collected via a questionnaire. To identify emotional reactions to the explanations of the relevance of different features, we observed heart rate variability (HRV), facial expressions, and self-reported emotions of the explainee while observing and listening to the explanation and assessed their retention of the features as well as their influence on the outcome of the decision task. Results indicate that (1) task-unrelated prior emotions do not affected the ratantion but may affect the understanding of the relevance of certain features in the sense of an emotion-induced confirmation bias, (2) certain features related to personal attitudes yielded arousal in individual participants, (3) this arousal affected the understanding of these variables.