Research Papers

Electricity markets are inherently complex systems characterised by strong nonlinearities, high-dimensional interactions, and increasing interdependence across regions. While deep neural networks (DNNs) have demonstrated strong predictive capabilities for electricity prices, their lack of interpretability limits their usefulness for understanding the underlying drivers of price formation. This paper addresses this gap by combining DNN models with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to analyse the determinants of electricity prices across 39 European bidding zones. We employ SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to quantify feature contributions and apply and extend SSHAP, an aggregation framework to improve interpretability in high-dimensional settings. The analysis identifies that renewable energy sources, particularly solar, play a disproportionately important role in price formation despite their lower share in total power generation. Gas prices remain a dominant and consistent driver across electricity markets, while interconnections significantly shape price dynamics, highlighting the strong interdependence of European electricity systems. In addition, a synthetic EU-wide electricity market is constructed to explore the counterfactual scenario of a fully integrated market with a single price.

Saliency map visualizations explain image-based AI predictions by pointing to regions, but these are often unintuitive and semantically unclear, leaving an interpretability gap. We argue that AI explanations should be intuitive -- coherent to user knowledge, yet simple and selective to accelerate interpretation. Inspired by artistic drawings, we propose SketchXplain to generate sketch-based visual explanations for intuitive image-based explainable AI (XAI). Combining techniques in saliency maps, concept-bottleneck models, and sketch optimization, SketchXplain integrates saliency to select coherent observation artifacts, concepts for knowledge coherence, cues to represent them, and abstraction for simplicity. Evaluating on face expression recognition, modeling and user studies showed that SketchXplain supported quicker interpretation with more aligned visualizations than saliency maps or simple drawings. Further evaluation on skin lesion diagnosis found that SketchXplain more coherently visualized disease symptoms, better supporting lay diagnosis. Thus, this work illustrates the value of sketches for intuitive, simple, coherent, and quick image-based XAI visualizations.

Adaptive AI ethics instruction in graduate research training benefits from intake measures that reflect differences in prior LLM experience. Prior coursework or workshop attendance is an obvious candidate, but it is not clear whether it is associated with pre-instruction ratings on key AI perception items. We compare three candidate intake features, self-reported usage frequency, self-rated LLM familiarity, and prior AI education, across five baseline perception outcomes in 93 bioscience graduate and postdoctoral trainees enrolled in a required research ethics course. Usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five outcomes, self-rated familiarity with three, and prior AI education with none. A threshold-like pattern at the lower end of the scale is most visible for training interest and accuracy trust rather than appearing as a uniform gradient across all five outcomes. In a short intake survey, reported LLM use is more consistently associated with these perceptions than prior coursework or workshops, with self-rated familiarity serving as a secondary indicator. These results suggest that simple pre-instruction behavioral signals can inform lightweight intake profiling for adaptive AI ethics education.

Current AI disclaimers often fail to function as intended due to warning habituation and a transparency paradox. As AI-generated information becomes pervasive in everyday decision-making, effective risk communication is increasingly critical for responsible design. This exploratory study examines how disclaimer placement and persuasive cues shape trust, perceived accuracy, and disclaimer engagement across three high-stakes domains: finance, medicine, and AI-generated content. Using a mixed within-between experimental design with 378 stimulus-level responses from 52 participants, we find that advisory content was generally trusted across conditions, even when disclaimers were present. A significant domain effect showed that medical content received the highest trust ratings. In the AI domain, the findings reveal a transparency paradox: some participants interpreted disclaimers not as warnings, but as signs of system self-awareness and honesty, paradoxically increasing perceived trustworthiness. Evidence of banner blindness further suggests that standardized AI disclaimers are insufficient to prevent over-reliance. Finance and medicine provide useful comparison domains by showing how users interpret warnings differently depending on context and perceived risk. These findings have vital implications for responsible AI design, algorithmic fairness, and consumer protection when users act on potentially misleading information in high-stakes settings.

Speech deepfake detection (SDD) systems require trustworthy explanations for reliable decision-making. Existing explanation ways mainly fall into two categories. Traditional explainable AI (XAI), such as gradient-based attribution, produces low-level attribution signals tightly coupled with model decisions, and harder to be understood by human than natural language explanations. Meanwhile, large language model (LLM)-based explanation generation often produces generic and ungrounded descriptions due to the lack of heuristic evidence and task-specific supervision, stemming from limited grounded explanation datasets for SDD. We therefore propose a training-free explanation framework that integrates XAI evidence with multimodal LLMs to generate grounded and specific explanations. Using the PartialSpoof dataset, we construct a grounded explanation dataset and show that methods with XAI increase inside accuracy by over 45\%, verified through human evaluation and faithfulness checks.

Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a key paradigm for privacy-preserving collaborative model training across distributed and heterogeneous data sources. By keeping raw data local, FL addresses data confidentiality concerns, yet it does not resolve the opacity of modern machine learning models. In parallel, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has gained attention for improving transparency, trust, and accountability, particularly in high-stakes domains. Their intersection has given rise to Federated Explainable Artificial Intelligence (FedXAI) paradigm, which aims to jointly satisfy privacy and explainability requirements. This survey provides a systematic review of FedXAI, highlighting the transition of explainability from a post-hoc tool to an integral component of the FL lifecycle. We show how explainability supports aggregation, personalization, robustness, coordination, and system-level decision making. To organize the literature, we introduce a taxonomy that classifies FedXAI methods by the role of explainability, model and explainer types, explanation scope, integration level, FL settings, and data heterogeneity. We review approaches ranging from model-agnostic explanations to interpretable federated models and explainability-aware aggregation mechanisms. We also examine evaluation practices and discuss the lack of standardized benchmarks and metrics for measuring explanation quality, stability, privacy leakage, and computational overhead. Finally, we identify key challenges, including explainability under non-IID data, explanation-centric security threats, communication-efficient XAI, continual FedXAI, and the integration of domain knowledge and regulatory constraints. By consolidating existing work and identifying key gaps, this survey serves as a reference framework for designing trustworthy, transparent, and privacy-preserving federated AI systems.

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) by young adults seeking sensitive health information has raised important questions in Human-AI Interaction about how these systems can support understanding and navigation of reproductive well-being. In response to Feminist HCI principles, we introduce OpenBloom, a web application and an exploratory design probe that uses LLMs to generate question-based prompts from reproductive health articles. Through a user study with 34 young adults across 136 interactions with OpenBloom, we provide an initial assessment of the system while exploring how participants' reflections engage with culture and value sensitivities. We found that while OpenBloom outputs were generally perceived as "safe" and non-offensive, they tend to paraphrase or rely on factual recall, which may lead to value dilution. We discuss implications under contestability and value-sensitive frameworks for future LLM-mediated reproductive health technologies and towards responsible AI discourse.

Research on artificial intelligence and democracy has grown quickly over the last decade. A shared conclusion in this literature is that AI does not create new democratic problems so much as it makes old ones worse. We now see this across information ecosystems, in elections, and in public administration. However, despite growing evidence, we lack a clear way to prioritize risks in this area, compare them across domains, and identify where democratic control is most likely to break down. So, our problem is: How can we systematize the problems that AI systems pose to democratic processes? This paper argues that principal agent theory may fit the task. In many phases of democratic systems, principals delegate key functions to AI systems and their providers without really being able to monitor how these systems operate or the outputs they produce. Treating AI as a delegation problem helps identify accountability gaps and other governance failures. Most importantly, as we shall illustrate, it provides metrics for empirical assessments of AI impact on democracy. As a second analytical element, we draw on the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and its seven characteristics of trustworthy AI, which supply substantive criteria for evaluating delegated tasks. Operationalized across the three domains through measurable indicators and domain specific trustworthiness criteria, we propose an analytical framework that centers on institutional assessability as the central condition for democratic control over AI. However, we stress that how severe a harm is, and how much risk is acceptable, are evaluative judgments that current methodologies neither acknowledge nor operationalize. This becomes acute when such evaluative judgments are (silently) delegated to private vendors. We identify this as a strong limitation left for future work.

The prospective clinical evaluation of artificial intelligence in medicine has expanded rapidly, but the global AI clinical trial landscape remains incompletely characterized. We systematically identified AI-related trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov using a broad keyword search followed by an LLM-based classifier. Each trial was classified across seven dimensions: clinical function, data modality, specialty, AI integration and autonomy, workflow position, translational maturity, and epistemic role. We identified 8,532 AI clinical trials across 32 specialties, with 80% registered from 2019 onward and 30.5% using a randomized controlled design. Imaging-based AI was the largest modality, with 2,475 trials (29%), while clinical text and NLP trials increased seven-fold between 2018 and 2025. Prognostic AI (4,324 trials) slightly exceeded diagnostic AI (3,828 trials), suggesting a shift from disease detection toward risk stratification and trajectory prediction. Treatment recommendation remained less developed, with 768 trials (9%). Translational maturity remained limited: 3,259 trials (38%) were retrospective validation studies and 1,802 (21%) were silent prospective evaluations, indicating that much of the pipeline still produces algorithmic rather than clinical evidence. Only 184 trials involved Level 4 semi-autonomous or closed-loop AI, 68% of which focused on glucose management. Multimodal AI accounted for 33.6% of trials, mainly combining imaging, omics, physiological signals, and wearable data. These findings indicate that clinical AI has moved from retrospective development to prospective evaluation, but not yet to adequately powered, geographically representative, long-term outcome trials. Future progress will depend on closing gaps in trial scale, specialty coverage, geographic representation, and translational maturity.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of mathematical problem solving and can even assist with research-level proofs, yet we still lack a scalable and reproducible way to measure step-level reasoning in long proofs across diverse sources. This evaluation gap limits trustworthy AI assistance in proof-certified scientific progress. Existing evaluations often emphasize final answers or rely on costly expert grading, while end-to-end proof generation remains open-ended and hard to verify automatically. We introduce Mask-Proof, a pipeline that turns real proofs into automatically checkable masked-step tasks. It masks key formula steps, provides the necessary surrounding context, and evaluates model reconstructions with an LLM-based equivalence judge using repeated votes for stability. The resulting Mask-ProofBench contains 292 curated problems across diverse research areas. Experiments with 17 models show that reasoning-enhanced models outperform standard models by 12% to 27%. Our evaluator achieves 96.8% agreement with expert annotators, enabling faithful, reproducible, and comparable measurement of step-level mathematical reasoning. Benchmark, annotations, and code are available at https://github.com/weating/Mask-Proof.

The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to examine how social bias emerges, is perceived, and can be mitigated within artificial intelligence and machine learning systems by practitioners directly involved in their design, development, and governance. Although examples from healthcare, criminal justice, employment, and education were used to illustrate domains where automated systems shape everyday life, the study focused on the lived experiences and professional insights of AI practitioners rather than sector-specific populations. Guided by Intersectionality Theory and Cognitive Science, the study employed an interpretivist approach, utilizing semi-structured interviews with nine practitioners, supplemented by document analysis and triangulated case material to enrich contextual understanding. Findings showed that algorithmic bias arises from historical inequities, exclusionary design assumptions, and organizational pressures that prioritize speed and efficiency over ethical reflection. Participants emphasized that technical corrections alone cannot ensure fairness; instead, equitable AI requires structural accountability, diverse participation, and sustained cognitive awareness during the development lifecycle. Many described limited enforcement of ethical standards and organizational cultures that inconsistently support responsible practice. The study concludes that human-centered and socially grounded AI development depends on embedding ethics early in the design process, strengthening governance frameworks, and cultivating institutional environments that encourage reflective decision-making. These insights contribute to ongoing conversations on responsible AI and offer practical guidance for organizations seeking to design systems that are transparent, accountable, and aligned with the communities they affect.

This study develops and evaluates a bankruptcy prediction framework that integrates consensus-based feature selection, hybrid resampling, stacking ensembles, and explainable artificial intelligence to improve minority-class detection in severely imbalanced financial data. Using the Taiwanese Bankruptcy Prediction dataset from the UCI Machine Learning Repository, five feature-selection algorithms were first applied, and a consensus retention rule reduced the input space to 23 robust variables. The balanced training data were then generated using SVM-SMOTE, SMOTE-Tomek, and SMOTE-ENN. Five ensemble machine learning classifiers, namely gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, histogram-based gradient boosting, LightGBM, and AdaBoost, were compared with five deep learning models, including RNN, LSTM, GRU, DNN, and MLP. In addition, hybrid stacking ensembles combined the five machine learning classifiers as base learners with each deep learning model as a meta-learner. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, recall, specificity, G-mean, and ROC-AUC, while SHAP was used to explain feature contributions. The results show that resampling strategy materially shaped model behavior. SVM-SMOTE and SMOTE-Tomek favored accuracy and specificity, whereas SMOTE-ENN delivered stronger minority-class detection. Among standalone models, the GRU with SMOTE-ENN achieved the best overall predictive balance, with recall of 0.8627, G-mean of 0.8517, and ROC-AUC of 0.9431. Among stacking ensembles, SMOTE-ENN with (GB+XGB+HGB+LGBM+AB)+LSTM provided the strongest compromise between sensitivity and specificity. SHAP analysis identified leverage, profitability, solvency, and operational efficiency indicators as the most influential predictors of bankruptcy risk. These findings support more reliable and interpretable early warning systems for financially distressed firms.