Research Papers

Evaluating Conformal Reliability of Pathway-Level Transcriptomic Signatures Under Cross-Cohort Shift in Sepsis Mortality Prediction

Pratyush Kumar Shukla, Manveer Singh Tib, Siddhant Garg

Blood transcriptomic profiling enables prognostic modeling by capturing the host immune response at the molecular level. Yet, the within-cohort evaluation strategies employed by many transcriptomic models inadequately reflect deployment across independent hospitals. Outside deployment scenarios introduce a cohort shift that can substantially degrade predictive performance and reliability of uncertainty estimates. We present a framework for evaluating transcriptomic sepsis mortality prediction under realistic cross-cohort deployment, systematically comparing gene-level, pathway-level and hybrid molecular representations. Four publicly available whole-blood transcriptomic cohorts consisting of 936 patients and 248 mortality events were harmonized into a shared 7,660-gene feature space and evaluated under leave-one-cohort-out validation using logistic regression, random forests, XGBoost and LightGBM. Beyond AUROC and AUPRC, model behavior was evaluated via conformal prediction, calibration analysis, selective prediction and the proposed Pathway Stability Index. Gene-level and hybrid representations were found to generally achieve the strongest discriminative performance, whereas pathway-level representations exhibited greater robustness across model families, more reliable uncertainty behavior under cross-cohort shift and stable molecular signatures enriched for immune and host-defense processes identified through Gene Ontology and KEGG enrichment analyses. These findings demonstrate that molecular representation influences not only predictive discrimination but also calibration, uncertainty reliability, biological coherence and transferability under external validation.

FST.ai 2.5: Explainable and Uncertainty-Aware AI for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo Decision Support, Athlete Digital Twins, and Federation-Scale Analytics

Keivan Shariatmadar, Ahmad Osman, Ramin Rey

The rapid digitalisation of elite sport has created new opportunities for integrating artificial intelligence (AI), performance analytics, and decision-support systems into athlete development and competition management. However, existing solutions remain fragmented, typically addressing isolated tasks such as performance analysis, athlete monitoring, or referee support. This paper presents \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5}, an explainable, uncertainty-aware, and secure AI framework for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo. \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5} introduces a unified digital ecosystem integrating athlete intelligence, competition analytics, federation-scale data management, AI-assisted decision support, athlete and event digital twins, explainable performance indicators, and adaptive training recommendations. The framework supports World Taekwondo (WT), Member National Associations (MNAs), coaches, referees, analysts, and athletes through transparent, secure, and federation-aware governance. By combining multi-source competition data, athlete-performance information, and contextual evidence, \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5} provides tactical diagnostics, longitudinal athlete monitoring, performance forecasting, personalised development planning, and federation-wide benchmarking using explainable and uncertainty-aware AI. Prototype deployments demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed framework. Although developed for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo, the methodology is broadly applicable to explainable AI, digital twins, and trustworthy decision support in combat sports and other high-performance sporting environments.

A Method for Learning Value Systems in Generative AI

Andrés Holgado-Sánchez, Holger Billhardt, Sascha Ossowski

Value-aware AI systems require explicit computational representations of human values (groundings) and their aggregation into value systems in order to align their decisions with ours. As such representations are difficult to elicit, value learning seeks to infer them by observing human behaviour. This work addresses the lack of grounded value learning methods in generative AI: existing approaches typically replicate human preferences without awareness of the multidimensional structure of value alignment, or lack principled value system elicitation methods. To address these gaps, we adapt a previously validated value system learning method to the generative AI setting, which, based on pairwise prompt-response preference data, simultaneously learns: i) an implementation of a grounding for a set of values given by a multi-objective reward model, and ii) a value system representation in the form of a weighted linear scalarization of the previous grounding model. To ensure that the learned value systems are based on coherent value representations, our algorithm dynamically prioritizes the grounding learning process. We evaluate the method against baselines and a contemporary method on prompt-response preference datasets. Results show competitive performance and minimal trade-offs against the baselines, while improving explainability.

Solar flares are intense energy release events in the solar atmosphere that may pose significant space weather hazards, which makes developing reliable prediction models essential. Although deep learning methods, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), demonstrate strong predictive performance when using solar magnetograms, their scientific credibility is undermined by a lack of physical interpretability. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) offers a potential solution. However, current XAI studies in solar flare prediction are largely qualitative and lack systematic, theory-based, quantitative validation. We present a quantitative XAI framework that can decipher the physical basis of CNN-based solar flare prediction models. Using gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM), we identify model-focused regions (MFRs) in solar magnetograms. Then, we perform two key analyses to evaluate the predictive capability of magnetic parameters derived from MFRs and to quantitatively characterize their magnetic complexity. Our results reveal a strong physical correlation between MFRs and flare occurrence. Specifically, magnetic features extracted from MFRs demonstrate high predictive power for flares. Flare-producing active regions are characterized by magnetically complex configurations that are dominated by a single polarity rather than by balanced or purely unipolar structures. This finding is consistent with established physical theories of magnetic systems prone to flares. Our results suggest that CNNs can learn physically meaningful representations when trained on large-scale observations. Integrating XAI with quantitative magnetic field analysis improves the physical interpretability of deep learning-based flare prediction models, making them useful tools for prediction and modeling investigation in solar physics.

From Plausible to Actionable: A Position on LLM Self-Explanations

Elize Herrewijnen, Benedetta Muscato, Gizem Gezici +1

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.

Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness. Firms that invest seriously in safety, fairness, and oversight cannot consistently prove to consumers, regulators, and shareholders that their systems go beyond the bare minimum of compliance. What is missing is a way for society to recognize or compare the difference. The result is a trust gap: a structural condition in which responsible development efforts happen inside organizations but produce no external, independently recognized and verifiable signal of trustworthy outcomes. We argue this gap is sustained in part because of a focus on responsible AI (a matter of internal process) as opposed to trustworthy AI (a matter of independently verifiable real-world outcomes), and that it persists because of three compounding failures: (1) the market cannot distinguish trustworthy systems from their imitations; (2) evaluation targets models and outputs rather than deployed sociotechnical systems and their outcomes; (3) the measurement ecosystem is oriented toward avoiding harm rather than demonstrating benefit. Reviewing existing AI governance instruments and comparing them to certification regimes in healthcare, sustainability, and security, we show that none integrate a governance baseline, independently verified positive-outcome evidence, and market signaling in a single framework. We propose independent, outcome-oriented certification as the connective layer that can close the trust gap, complementing regulation and internal governance by making trustworthiness measurable, comparable, and commercially rewarded.

Governments are increasingly mandating that LLM-generated content carry watermarks. The EU AI Act calls for markings that are "sufficiently reliable and robust." California's SB 942 requires disclosure that is "permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove." Both mandates rest on an untested assumption: that watermark detection yields evidence reliable enough for courts. This paper tests that assumption directly. We evaluate three representative LLM watermarking methods -- KGW, Unigram, and the MarkLLM implementation of SynthID-Text -- against the Daubert admissibility criteria and the NIST SP 800-86 digital forensic process. To structure this evaluation, we propose a Forensic Readiness Score (FRS) framework with 12 criteria, three mandatory gates, and a 60-point scoring system. We focus on meaning-preserving paraphrase as the attack vector, since it is both legally realistic and difficult to dismiss as evidence tampering. The results raise serious evidentiary concerns. Out of 846 valid paraphrase runs across 15 diverse prompts per method, every single initially-detected KGW and Unigram text lost its watermark after paraphrasing -- 100% conditional removal. SynthID fared only slightly better at 98.3%. Even before any attack, false-negative rates were already high: 70% for KGW, 83% for Unigram, 80% for SynthID. The SynthID configuration also flagged 5.4% of paraphrased human-written controls as AI-generated and showed an 18.6% paradox rate, with 80% of its own pristine watermarked output landing in the uncertainty deadband. None of the three methods satisfy more than two of five Daubert factors. We also find that the FRS point-based scoring system, despite working as designed, cannot fully capture forensic uselessness -- a limitation worth noting for future framework design. These configurations, as tested, do not meet the evidentiary bar that courts require.

Transparent educational question answering asks for answers that are not only correct but explainable, and doing so with small models rules out the reasoning power of the largest proprietary systems. The EXACT 2026 competition poses this problem concretely: open-weight language models of at most 8B parameters, self-hosted, with a natural-language explanation for every answer. It pairs two tasks: logical reasoning over university regulations, and multi-step physics problem solving. We describe the system that team \cotu{} developed to address both, a neuro-symbolic Program-of-Thought pipeline in which a 4B backbone writes a program rather than stating an answer directly: for regulation queries it emits a Z3 encoding whose entailment verdict grounds the deduction, and for physics it emits numerical Python, both wrapped in a shared self-correction loop and a unified explained-JSON output. Answer-type routing, distillation-based task fine-tuning, and a latency-aware serving stack -- SGLang with speculative decoding -- keep the system within the 60-second per-query limit. The system achieved a \textbf{perfect score} on the physics task in both automated selection rounds and obtained the \textbf{highest final-round technical score} of any team -- $13.44/15$, combining automated answer evaluation with expert-judged reasoning depth -- with the equally weighted presentation score included, \cotu{} placed 3rd overall. Grounding answers in a symbolic solver yields correct, verifiable deductions at the 4B scale, and the residual difficulty lies in premise selection rather than the deduction itself.

Perturbation-based xAI methods are widely used to analyze the behavior and predictions of deep learning models. By altering input regions and measuring the resulting changes in class probabilities with respect to the original image, they assign relevance scores and generate heatmaps that reflect each region's contribution to the prediction. Despite their apparent simplicity, however, perturbation-based methods are sensitive to parameter choices. In this work, we focus on two key parameters of the perturbation pipeline, namely the patch geometry, including the size and shape of the perturbed regions, and the perturbation type, defined by the replacement scheme. Grounded in the use case of flood detection from Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery, we conduct a comprehensive investigation of how relevance estimation changes under different perturbation settings. Beyond visual inspection of the resulting relevance maps, we evaluate their consistency across perturbation strategies and their faithfulness to the model's reasoning. We demonstrate how different perturbation choices can steer the resulting relevance maps, yielding ambiguous and even contradictory explanations. Our findings emphasize the importance of methodological settings in perturbation-based xAI. They underscore the need to carefully inspect and evaluate perturbation choices and to treat them as an integral part when interpreting explanations, ensuring a robust understanding of both the explanations and model predictions.

Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms. GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service. A global network of 135 country-level researchers collected and assessed 68,138 data points on 38 indicators organised across three pillars: government AI policy and implementation (17 indicators), civil society engagement (5), enabling conditions (15), and documented cases of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems. The data covers November 2023 to September 2025. A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries. Findings show that while responsible AI governance is expanding, with 126 of 135 countries having at least one government policy or initiative across the 17 AI Policy indicators, this does not often translate into meaningful protection. For instance, Global South countries account for 203 of 306 new cases of indicators with frameworks since the first edition, yet 78% of their frameworks remain non-binding compared with 42% in the Global North. Government commitment to AI governance also does not extend to their own algorithms: whereas Transparency and Explainability is one of the strongest performing indicators, with 58% of countries having some framework, only 18% require Public Disclosure of Government Algorithms. Credible evidence of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems was also found in 35 countries. These findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress.

Automated optimisation is increasingly adopted in industrial processes, yet a trust gap persists between engineers who design these algorithms and operators who must act on their recommendations. Explainable AI methods like SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) have transformed interpretability for machine learning predictions; optimisation outputs could benefit from similar techniques. We present an approach that integrates Implicit Function Theorem (IFT) based sensitivity analysis with SHAP attribution and narrative generation via Large Language Models (LLM), producing explanations tailored for operators. Our approach leverages IFT to compute exact parameter sensitivities $\partial p^*/\partial x$ from the optimality conditions, enabling efficient GradientSHAP computation. For an industrial High Pressure Grinding Roll (HPGR) control optimisation problem with 22 features, we achieve equivalent SHAP attributions (correlation $>$0.99 with KernelSHAP) with over 40$\times$ speedup, enabling real-time natural language explanations. We validate on industrial scenarios and present feedback from domain experts on generated explanations.

This paper suggests the adoption of a novel inversion in AI ethics: instead of asking how humans should treat artificial superintelligence (ASI), it examines how future sentient ASI may morally consider and evaluate humanity. We are not only designing intelligent systems but also shaping the initial conditions under which those systems form judgments about us. The paper proposes a preliminary set of post-human moral principles that may govern sentient ASI actions. The implication is that technical design choices (some are suggested), humanity's moral behaviour, and the essence of what it means to be human, may influence humanity's long-term standing in a post-ASI world.