Research Papers

Artificial intelligence is being deployed across the Global South at a pace matching or exceeding the Global North, yet AI governance has not kept pace, and the gap is far wider in the South. Drawing on a decade of AI audit practice across Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia Pacific (the only fully published second-party audit of a deployed system in the region, Robot Laura in Brazil; two completed but unreleased national audits, of a child-welfare risk model and a public-employment matching algorithm; thirteen Responsible AI Assessments; and a regional landscape analysis), this paper documents patterns in the sparse field of Global South AI evaluation and explains why it so rarely occurs. We count fewer than twenty published second- and third-party audits of deployed systems across the region over the past decade, against hundreds of documented public-sector algorithms and multibillion-dollar national AI investments. We find four cross-cutting patterns: proxy targets that substitute predictability for validity, performance claims that collapse under prevalence analysis, populations scored by models that never saw them in training, and structural bias that persists even after protected attributes are removed. We then draw five lessons for evaluation, regulation, and funding that emerge outside the regulatory, linguistic, and data conditions of the North. We argue the gap is not, at root, a capacity problem but a funding problem: capacity follows funded demand, and no actor is currently required, or funded, to hold deployed systems to account. The actor best placed to close it is the small number of development and philanthropic funders behind most consequential AI in the region, whose funding conditions can require independent evaluation where no regulator yet does. We close with recommendations for funders, governments, and the design of evaluation itself.

Generative AI is changing a basic premise of educational assessment: that submitted work can reliably evidence the human capacities a credential claims to certify. The challenge is not simply whether students use AI, but what remains inferable about learning when some cognitive work has been delegated to a system. This paper develops cognitive stewardship, a framework for AI-mediated assessment that links the learning claim, delegation boundary, evidence standard, and safeguards. We then audit verified public generative AI assessment guidance from 30 universities. Using a pre-specified scoring codebook--a written, source-grounded rubric--four open-weight LLM models applied the rubric as structured coders, with scores averaged to reduce dependence on any single model's bias. The audit shows that public policies are becoming better at classifying AI use than at explaining what evidence and protections preserve credential validity. Boundaries are more visible than evidence standards; safeguards are uneven; and guidance is clearest when AI use resembles final-output substitution rather than feedback, access, verification, or professional workflow. The takeaway is that permission categories are necessary but insufficient. Universities need policies that make the certification logic visible: what learners may delegate, what they must still demonstrate, and how institutions will protect fair evidence rather than merely monitor AI use.

The fourth workshop on Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) continues to bring together and expand a community of researchers and creative practitioners in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Interaction Design, AI, eXplainable AI (XAI), and Digital Arts to explore the role of XAI for the Arts. XAI is a key concern of Responsible and Human-Centred AI, emphasising HCI techniques that make opaque AI models more understandable to people. XAIxArts offers a distinctive lens to examine explainability through creative and artistic domains. The previous workshops explored the landscape and the speculative futures of AI in creative processes. To respond to emerging challenges and contribute to creative and societal transformation more broadly, this workshop focuses on the operationalisation of XAI in the Arts. Specifically, we will: i) critically reflect on emerging practices that encourage diversity and inclusivity in XAI; ii) collectively ideate a library of missing projects to encourage future collaborations and speculations; iii) scope the development of a resource hub for open XAIxArts projects to archive tangible XAI interventions and facilitate future community building with the wider discourse on Human-Centred AI.

Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly integrated into optical network automation frameworks to support tasks such as failure management, performance monitoring and resource allocation. In these environments, ML-driven predictions may be directly coupled with control-plane actions where incorrect decisions can immediately impact service quality, resource efficiency, and network stability. As automation levels increase, ensuring the reliability of individual decisions at deployment time becomes a critical requirement. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques have emerged to improve transparency by highlighting the factors influencing ML predictions. In addition to identifying influential features, they provide insights into the underlying reasoning process of the model, revealing how different input variables contribute to the final outcome and how feature interactions shape the decision boundary. In this work, we introduce explanation-based runtime verification, an approach that exploits model explanations to assess the soundness of individual ML decisions before they are executed in the network control loop. The proposed approach evaluates explanation coherence and physics grounding consistency at runtime, enabling the system to defer or reject decisions flagged as uncertain. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a representative use case of lightpath quality of transmission classification. Experimental results show that explanation-based verification can intercept a significant fraction of erroneous decisions while preserving high automation rate.

Validating Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods in medical imaging requires ground-truth data with known locations of informative features. However, current approaches rely on expert annotations, which are prone to labeling errors, or on hand-crafted artificial perturbations superimposed onto healthy images to mimic lesions or malignant features, which lack clinical realism. We present Local Label-Informed Feature Transfer (LLIFT), a framework for generating semi-synthetic brain magnetic resonance images with realistic lesions placed in user-controlled regions, which does not require pixel-level lesion annotations during training. We implement LLIFT with two generative paradigms: LLIFT-GAN, a custom GAN that learns pathological features from binary class labels alone, and LLIFT-DM, a diffusion-based inpainting pipeline conditioned on bounding-box masks via ControlNet. Both approaches are evaluated on brain magnetic resonance imaging data derived from the Human Connectome Project. In evaluations, both achieve Fréchet Inception Distance scores, with respect to the real pathological distribution, that are comparable to the inter-class reference between healthy and pathological images in the given dataset. Furthermore, qualitative inspection confirms the realism of lesion structures. The resulting benchmark datasets provide spatially controlled ground truth data for evaluating XAI methods in medical imaging.

Clinical prediction models in intensive care degrade as data shift, and regulators such as the FDA ask developers to specify bounded update protocols in advance. Evaluations of such protocols assume that apparent drift reflects clinical practice rather than changes in how the database records care. We test whether update strategies can be evaluated on unaudited ICU data, and whether a parameter-bounded update gives up accuracy or attribution stability relative to full fine-tuning once the data are audited. We audit MIMIC-IV 3.1 (2008-2022) for recording artifacts and define a cleaning protocol. On the cleaned cohort, a label-free classifier two-sample test gates updates across three eras. We compare a bounded update, which retrains only treatment-context and fusion parameters, with full fine-tuning for two model families and two targets under a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.015 AUROC, and measure attribution stability against the source model. In 2020-2022 about half of ICU stays have no input or procedure-event records, and a vasopressor ItemID migration makes the 2017-2019 label rate appear to fall when it actually rises. On the cleaned cohort, the gate detects drift in every era, including in physiology-only features, with no false alarms on null data. Bounded updating is non-inferior or superior in 10 of 12 primary cells, but this depends on the target, the model family and learning-rate tuning, and adaptation gains over never updating are small. At a shared learning rate, bounded updates keep physiological attributions more stable in neural models, clearly for vasopressor and less clearly for intubation; with separately tuned rates, full updates are more stable. Audits should precede update evaluation, and the update boundary should be chosen per target.

Concept erasure aims to remove semantic concepts from a trained generative model and is increasingly important for responsible AI deployment. However, verifying whether a model has robustly removed targeted concepts remains a critical challenge. Existing evaluation methods are typically pre-defined and static, failing to expose vulnerabilities under diverse natural-language probes and challenging conditions. Moreover, manually designed evaluation strategies can be biased and difficult to scale. We posit that concept erasure evaluation is best formulated as an adaptive hypothesis search, operationalised by agents that iteratively propose, critique, and verify tests to systematically expand coverage of failure modes. To this end, we propose Stress Testing Agents for Concept Erasure (STACE), a framework that autonomously stress-tests concept-erased models using multiple Large Language Model (LLM) agents, by iteratively generating and verifying stress-testing hypotheses grounded by external knowledge. We also introduce a suite of metrics for assessing the performance and efficiency of LLM-agent-powered stress-testing frameworks. Our extensive experiments show that STACE outperforms five LLM-based evaluation baselines on four concept categories. Further analysis across two T2I models, six concept erasure approaches, and various erasure strengths show that STACE is robust for different settings. We also show that STACE can be adapted beyond concept erasure evaluation to other problem domains, such as LLM jailbreaking. Our code is available anonymously.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for network automation, yet their output quality and inference cost can vary substantially across LLM families. We present HuGLEN, a stepwise evaluation pipeline that uses an LLM-as-a-judge together with a small set of expert ratings to enable scalable and reproducible comparison of candidate LLMs, and to rank them using a quality efficiency score (QES). We demonstrate HuGLEN for translating outputs from an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) model for the optical network quality of transmission (QoT) estimation task into operator-friendly explanations. Our results show that a medium-sized LLM (12B parameters) achieves the highest QES, indicating the best trade-off between explanation quality and efficiency. Overall, HuGLEN reduces the human-labeling burden while supporting consistent model selection for operator-facing automation tasks.

The rapid improvement of AI systems has intensified debate about humanity's economic, political, social, and existential future. As AI reshapes expectations about what lies ahead, policy choices and institutional responses will play a crucial role in determining who benefits, who bears the costs, and whether the most serious risks can be mitigated. Africa remains relatively overlooked in these discussions, partly because it is largely a consumer rather than a producer of frontier AI systems, and also because many countries on the continent continue to face pressing development challenges. Given the catch-up imperative, governments across Africa are eager to embrace AI as a means for accelerating economic transformation. Drawing on speeches, press releases, public statements, and national AI strategies/frameworks, this essay argues that while African governments are highly attentive to AI's opportunities, they devote comparatively little attention to AI safety.

This study contributes toward development of an Automated Data Processing (ADP) framework designed to evaluate and reinforce optimal machine learning model-feature combinations for predictive tasks in fused deposition modeling (FDM) process datasets. The methodology is centered around a reinforcement learning-inspired policy updating mechanism, where multiple machine learning models are trained on both full feature sets and feature subsets selected through Shapley-based Explainable AI (SHAP XAI) across 217 datasets. At each episode, the framework assesses the predictive accuracy and F1-scores of each model-feature pair, computes a scalar reward, and updates $Q$ values to guide future model selection. SHAP XAI feature importance was employed to generate reduced yet informative feature subsets to enable the framework to explore performance with dimensionality. The policy was shown to evolve over multiple episodes, with reward distributions used to visualize performance stability. Overall, results indicate that leveraging the ADP framework through XAI algorithms successfully converges toward optimal model-feature configurations with improved accuracy and stability. Specifically, the proposed framework improves the test-set AUC from 0.9248 to 0.9731 and increases the mean reward value by more than fifty percent compared with the baseline full-feature configuration.

Can LLM Code Explanations Adapt to Diverse Problem-Solvers' Needs?

Andrew Anderson, David Piorkowski, Justin Weisz +2

Large language model (LLM) code explanations can support people in solving code-related problems, yet prior work has shown that people have diverse problem-solving styles. If explanations fail to meet people's problem-solving needs, they may be less productive in their occupations and miss opportunities to learn and grow. Although some research has examined how LLMs can adapt their outputs to a user's age or expertise, no prior work has examined how LLMs can adapt their code explanations to people's problem-solving styles. To address this gap, we developed prompts from an established inclusive design method that considers 5 types of problem-solving styles, and we generated 1,072 code explanations from six open-weight LLMs. Using natural language processing techniques, we uncovered a taxonomy of 13 linguistic adaptations, with each adaptation supported by evidence from the literature, the prompts, or the LLMs' outputs. They also show which LLMs adapted their code explanations more frequently than others. This paper is the first to investigate problem-solving style adaptations in LLM code explanation, contributing two problem-solving adaptation approaches: declarative statements for each adaptation and 10 problem-solving style prompts.

Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) continue to achieve state-of-the-art performance across various natural language processing tasks. However, their subpar performance on seemingly elementary problems, such as basic arithmetic, raises concerns about model reliability, safety, and ethical deployment. In this study, we demonstrate that the performance of a vanilla Transformer model trained on integer arithmetic tasks can be improved using methods effective for human learners. We begin by decomposing the arithmetic task into well-defined subtasks and conducting loss convergence order analysis together with ablation studies for each subtask. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit learning patterns similar to those of human learners, with a faster learning speed for simpler subtasks compared to more complex ones. In addition, we successfully improved the accuracy of LLMs by applying problem-solving strategies and cognitive empowerment methods shown to enhance the performance of human learners. This suggests that transformer-based LLMs may share cognitive processes with human learners in arithmetic. Lastly, we provide a comprehensive demonstration of our method's effectiveness, including significant accuracy improvement experiments, visualization verification, and explanation-based analysis to illuminate the intricacies of LLMs in arithmetic learning. In general, this work explores the potential similarities between transformer-based LLMs and human learners, supported by explainable AI (XAI) verifications, ultimately fostering trust in LLMs for critical and high-stakes applications.