Research Papers

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) diagnosis remains challenging due to heterogeneous symptoms and reliance on clinical assessment, underscoring the need for objective, data-driven approaches that leverage patient-generated physiological signals. We propose Siam-ALS, an explainable Siamese deep learning framework that jointly models synchronized electroencephalography (EEG) and eye-tracking (ET) signals. EEG captures ALS-related changes in brain activity, while ET provides information about oculomotor control, allowing the model to learn complementary patterns associated with ALS. The framework employs two modality-specific encoders: a convolutional EEG encoder that captures spatiotemporal neural patterns and an MLP-based ET encoder that models oculomotor dynamics. These modality-specific features are processed through weight-sharing Siamese branches and fused into a compact 64-dimensional joint embedding. A lightweight classifier is used to predict ALS, while pairwise metric learning helps the model learn more effective patterns from the small, diverse ALS datasets. Performance was evaluated on the public EEGET-ALS dataset using strict subject-level cross-validation, where Siam-ALS achieved an accuracy of 0.988 and an AUROC of 0.998, demonstrating strong performance compared with classical machine learning, DL, and non-Siamese fusion approaches. Cross-dataset evaluation on the independent BigP3BCI dataset achieved an AUROC of approximately 0.98, supporting the generalization capability of Siam-ALS across different BCI paradigms. To enhance interpretability, six XAI methods were evaluated in the learned embedding space, with SHAP achieving the highest, though statistically comparable, fidelity in identifying important EEG and ET patterns that contribute to ALS predictions. Overall, Siam-ALS provides an accurate, generalizable, and explainable framework for multimodal ALS detection.

A brain tumor is an unusual growth of cells in the brain that can be cancerous or not, affecting normal brain function and causing serious risk to health. Existing solutions for brain tumor classification, such as expert manual evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, are generally inconsistent as different professionals have different criteria and can be resource-intensive, leading to delayed diagnoses. Additionally, while deep learning models have demonstrated potential, they typically require significant computational resources, motivating the need for more efficient and accessible diagnostic tools that can be deployed in real-time healthcare settings. To address these limitations, this study presents BrainAid, which makes efficient use of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) for effective classification of four-class classification of glioma, meningioma, pituitary tumor, and no-tumor MRI scans, outperforming all the standard models such as VGG16, Inception-V3, ResNet-50 and so, while integrating Explainable AI (XAI) to improve interpretability. The BrainAid is trained to classify tumors with a high precision of 98%, achieving an F1 score of 98% and an accuracy of 98% using publicly available dataset. The model is deployed on a Raspberry Pi, demonstrating efficiency in low-resource environments. This system shows the feasibility of real-time, edge-based tumor classification, providing quick diagnostic support for medical professionals and enhancing patient care in resource-limited healthcare facilities and underserved areas.

CoBe: A Benchmark For Conversational Counterfactual Text Editing

Arvind Raghavan, Inwoo Hwang, Shreyas Havaldar +6

Counterfactual text editing is the ability to revise a given text in light of a hypothetical change while preserving facts not causally affected by that change. When asked what would have happened if a doctor had not recommended surgery, the model output should retain the patient's medical history and modify only the consequences of the decision. This requires causal understanding: a model must determine, without being explicitly instructed to, what events are affected by the hypothetical change and what should remain fixed. This skill is central to human reasoning, especially in safety-critical domains like healthcare or law. By contrast, the task of associational text generation merely generates text statistically associated with the altered condition. In the medical example, an associational response might make the patient's symptoms less severe because milder cases correlate with no surgery. Such responses produce a plausible scenario, but not the counterfactual version of the given one. Prior counterfactual-text datasets do not clearly separate these modes of reasoning. We introduce the Counterfactual Benchmark (CoBe), a testbed for models' zero-shot ability to counterfactually edit a given textual scenario when prompted to do so in a conversationally natural way. CoBe contains 2000 questions spanning healthcare, science and engineering, business, and everyday scenarios. We test a suite of frontier and smaller models, with frontier systems achieving an average score of $58.05\%$. Our findings indicate that models frequently default to associational generation rather than preserving the causal structure of the original scenario. Moreover, performance does not scale consistently with either model size or output token length, suggesting that the failure may reflect model training objectives rather than insufficient model capacity.

We present a training framework for developing core competencies in the practical operationalisation of AI ethics: (1) identifying ethical concerns; (2) determining which standard ethics requirements they implicate; (3) selecting and prioritising concrete technical and organisational measures to address them; and (4) recognising ethics tensions and reasoning about trade-offs where such tensions cannot be fully resolved. The framework is intended for researchers and engineers in AI, Research Ethics Committee members, policymakers, and students, providing them with practical tools for translating abstract ethical requirements into concrete actions. The framework provides a step-by-step approach organised around four interconnected tasks: issue identification, requirement mapping, measure selection, and tension identification. These tasks are supported by a suite of training materials, including an Ethics Checklist and a Portfolio of Measures. Here, we complement them with a set of practical exercises of three different types as well as trainer guides. We also discuss lessons learned in pilot training sessions and offer recommendations for trainers.

Machine Unlearning for Federated Socially Fair k-Means Clustering

Aravind Reddy, Deeraj S K, Mohd Wasif Raza +1

Federated clustering can support applications such as patient stratification across hospitals and customer segmentation across distributed financial datasets. Responsible AI calls for fair representation of demographic groups and support for data deletion, motivated in part by rights such as the GDPR's right to erasure. These goals interact: deleting records can change the balance between groups and alter the clustering of the remaining population. We study exact machine unlearning for federated socially fair $k$-means, whose objective is to minimize the largest group-average squared distance to the nearest center. Our approach keeps separate local summaries for each group, so summaries at unaffected institutions remain valid as global fairness weights change. For two groups, we prove an initialization approximation guarantee independent of client group proportions under ideal sampling, and we show that same-seed replay reproduces retraining exactly. Reuse pays off most when a whole client withdraws: across three datasets, replay is $35.8\times$ faster than retraining for the initialization-only model and remains $2.4\times$ and $1.7\times$ faster with one and two fair-refinement rounds, which improve worst-group cost. For individual record deletions, gains are modest (about $1.06\times$), and certifying cached assignments can cost more than it saves. These results map where exact unlearning can profitably reuse computation. Code and reproducibility materials are available at https://github.com/arareddy/mufsc.

Who should give up compute for AI safety research: customers or capability research? Safety paid for by customers delays no capability. Safety paid for by research slows the frontier, which gives knowledge more time to accumulate but postpones what a finished frontier provides. In a frontier-takeoff model, the cheaper source at a given allocation is set by a threshold in demand capacity. Demand capacity is the share of compute customers can use once the frontier is finished. Research should pay too only when demand capacity lies below the threshold. Where the threshold sits depends on how fast the value of customer services diminishes. In the calibration it rises with the service budget, because each further unit taken from customers costs them more. Safety paid for by customers should come early: its ratio to customer compute falls over the takeoff unless safety productivity rises fast. In a calibration with a tight service budget, early customer-funded safety lowers the probability of catastrophe from 75 to 51 percent. That is within one point of the best rule found that may also slow research.

When Scene Text Hijacks the Scene: Uncovering, Exploiting, and Mitigating Rendered-Text Semantic Leakage in Image Generation Models

Feifei Li, Runjie Wang, Xiaohan Zhang +3

The reliability and accountability of image generative models (IGMs) are essential for building responsible and trustworthy AI systems. Recent IGMs, such as Nano Banana and GPT-Image, now support complex instruction following, realistic image synthesis, and controllable scene-text rendering. As these capabilities expand, safety analysis must also account for new control channels introduced by complex prompts. In this work, we study rendered-text semantic leakage, a largely overlooked phenomenon in open-domain text rendering. Although rendered text is intended to serve as a local visual constraint that should be reproduced verbatim in the generated image, it also carries linguistic semantics that may be interpreted by the model as part of the input instruction. This makes rendered text a potential semantic control channel whose safety implications remain insufficiently understood. We systematically characterize this phenomenon by decoupling the main visual prompt from the rendered text and measuring their individual and compositional effects on generated images. We quantify semantic leakage and rendering fidelity, and further analyze how leakage emerges from intermediate model evidence. We then show that harmful semantics embedded in scene text can persist through LLM-based prompt enhancement pipelines and steer non-text image regions, even when the main visual prompt remains benign. Finally, we propose a preliminary mitigation approach that reduces unsafe semantic transfer from rendered text to non-text regions while preserving the intended text-rendering behavior on FLUX-2-dev. Our findings reveal rendered text as a dual-use carrier of visible data and latent semantics, exposing a text-centric cross-modal attack surface in modern IGMs.

Safety benchmarks typically report one overall score for a suite of datasets, each of which may target one or more safety-related attributes, so models with similar overall scores can have very different attribute profiles. Comparing models is more tractable at the level of individual attributes, yet it is often unclear whether even a single dataset's scores isolate any single attribute. One plausible candidate for such an attribute is harmful refusal, a model's tendency to refuse dangerous or policy-violating prompts. We examine whether it constitutes a single, measurable attribute in HELM Safety. Using a construct validity framework that stipulates that an attribute must exist before a test can measure it, we start with HELM Safety's four datasets that might plausibly target harmful refusal, but find that three are saturated. We subject the remaining dataset, HarmBench, to two psychometric tests to determine if a single attribute like harmful refusal could stand behind its score. First, multidimensional item response theory modeling strongly suggests that HarmBench does not measure a singular attribute. Second, a differential item functioning analysis finds items where models from different developers with the same refusal ability score differently. These flags largely disappear under scope-specific matching, a pattern consistent with aggregation effects but not sufficient to rule out domain-specific developer differences. Zooming out, HarmBench collapses distinct harm behaviors into one score, and the overall HELM safety aggregate further collapses HarmBench and scores from other datasets into a single top-line number. Any safety score that averages over datasets and items can hide saturation and conflate behaviors this way. We argue that a score should earn its single-attribute reading before models are compared with it.

High-risk applications of deep learning require precise characterization of model decision-making. We conduct a systematic explainability evaluation across Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs), and Vision Mamba (ViM). Unlike predominantly qualitative studies, we quantify the alignment between model attention and human visual perception using eye-tracking ground truth. We formalize this comparison via a standardized normalization pipeline mapping post-hoc attribution maps and gaze heatmaps onto spatial probability distributions. Alignment is evaluated across fine-grained classification, medical imaging, and emotion recognition using architecture-specific XAI methods. We measure fidelity using Jensen-Shannon similarity, Chi-square similarity, and Pearson correlation, three complementary estimators capturing support overlap, mass discrepancy, and structural co-variation. Our results reveal distinct attention dynamics: CNNs tend to exhibit a more global focus, with spatially more diffuse saliency maps that correlate well with human perception in general contexts, while ViTs demonstrate fine-grained, patch-level attention, often focused on discriminative microfeatures. The Mamba architecture shows biased behavior: it achieves strong explainability in medical tasks but exhibits divergent intensity distributions in natural images; our analytical characterization of the metrics makes this dissociation explicit, since near-unit support overlap is attained simultaneously with a vanishing linear correlation. We further analyze the effect of backbone freezing and ensemble strategies on model interpretability. The results highlight how architectural and training choices influence the alignment between model saliency and human visual attention.

The adoption of machine learning for socially relevant tasks requires effective explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods to better understand the behavior of machine learning models. Attribution methods are a popular XAI approach in which input-output relationships are characterized by heat maps that reflect the relative importance of input features for a particular prediction. The quality of such maps is often assessed by measuring faithfulness based on the area under insertion and deletion curves, which measures changes in the model output as features are added and removed. In this study, we derive an objective function from this notion of faithfulness and a way to approximate its gradient. We establish the connection between insertion curves and top-$k$ feature selection, which leads to a loss function measuring the quality of attributions. Randomization of the loss allows us to efficiently approximate its gradient. To show the effectiveness of the general approach, we combine the loss function with the neural explanation mask framework. The resulting method, termed Ra-NEM, can be used with any differentiable model without affecting the model's performance. Experiments demonstrate that Ra-NEM provides accurate attributions robustly and efficiently. Compared to other algorithms, the attributions have not only higher faithfulness but also perform well in terms of other XAI metrics. The high inference speed of Ra-NEM makes the method suitable for online applications. The code is available online: https://github.com/baerminator/Ra_Nem

Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) can facilitate mass customisation in Industry 4.0, with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) representing a promising approach for developing safe AI-based robots. Practical challenges remain regarding safety during AI development, human feedback quality, and bidirectional human-robot adaptation. We conducted a scoping review of RLHF in HRC systems, mapping methods that address these challenges. Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened 199 records and included 20 peer-reviewed publications (2020-2025) spanning multiple HRC domains. To our knowledge, this is the first review focused on the bidirectional, closed-loop design of RLHF. Our review found multiple feedback modalities enabling data collection in various feedback formats. Collected data can be integrated at different stages of AI training, resulting in a multi-step development process. Pilot experiments are commonly used to evaluate HRC systems based on both human and robot metrics. To empirically test a key gap identified in the review, we conducted a between-subjects VR experiment comparing system- and user-initiated feedback on robot proxemic behaviour for safe navigation. Using Bayesian models, we analysed the relation between the collected feedback and safety metrics: psychological safety (post-experiment questionnaire) and physical safety (inverse time-to-collision). Results show that user-initiated feedback captures perceived safety better than system-initiated feedback, indicating that feedback timing directly affects feedback quality. Our review and experiment findings show that RLHF relies on appropriate feedback methods to ensure AI safety in HRC, and future RLHF research should prioritise realistic HRC experiments evaluating the effects of feedback collection methods on relevant human and robot metrics.

In the wake of the increasingly public discussion about AI alignment, recent work has tried to propose specific AI architectures that behave safely. However, the proposed arguments that seemingly demonstrate proved alignment mostly neglect the environment the agent needs to act in. We discuss theoretical bounds for agent-agnostic safety guarantees in environments that can only be partially observed and within which an action is required within limited time. We introduce two realistic scenarios, one with an infinite state space and one with signal mixture. In these scenarios, we prove that even a perfect agent cannot guarantee safe behaviour. It will be argued that for any proof of AI safety or alignment, the environment and associated safe actions need to be specifically considered together with the agent.