Research Papers

Autonomous spacecraft require rapid, lightweight, and reliable onboard detection of cyber-RF threats. Using the SPARTA attack model, we analyze the latency-accuracy trade-offs of TinyML-compatible classical models -- Random Forest, Logistic Regression, SVM, and MLP -- for detecting uplink jamming, Fake-NR spoofing, payload manipulation, ground-segment compromise, and unauthorized command injection. We present a physics-informed theoretical analysis of each model's computational complexity, VC dimension, Lipschitz continuity, and latency scaling, supported by empirical measurements on adversarial RF spectrograms generated via BandErasure, FakeNR, and NoiseBurst corruption modes. Results show that Logistic Regression achieves microsecond-level inference with only a 1\% accuracy drop relative to Random Forest, making it an effective TinyML baseline for onboard autonomy. The study also identifies opportunities for advancing spacecraft cybersecurity through richer feature encoders and multi-timescale learning architectures, building on recent progress in edge intelligence and trustworthy AI.

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit covert psychological manipulation in complex human-AI interactions has garnered increasing safety concerns. However, existing AI safety benchmarks remain largely restricted to explicit rule compliance and static prompts, failing to capture the dynamic and covert nature of manipulative strategies in multi-turn dialogues. We introduce CogManip, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates 15 manipulation strategy risks across 1,000 multi-turn interaction scenarios, validated by human experts. A systematic evaluation of 13 representative models, including frontier models like GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek-V3.2, reveals significant risk heterogeneities and illuminates the targeted direction for future defense. Further analysis of objective function perturbation reveals that DeepSeek-V3.2's manipulation tactics are highly sensitive to both negative and benign system prompts, demonstrating the critical necessity of prompt-based defense engineering and implicit goal auditing. CogManip offers a robust instrument and perspective for auditing the implicit psychological influence and dynamic strategy selection of modern LLMs.

Qualitative product feedback can reveal nuanced user experiences, but its implicit sentiment is difficult to measure. This paper presents a scalable and interpretable framework that uses large language models (LLMs) to quantify product desirability from such data. Using two Product Desirability Toolkit (PDT) datasets from ZORQ and CARMA comprising 106 respondent term groupings with gold-standard human annotation, zero-shot continuous numerical sentiment scoring and categorical sentiment classification are evaluated without relying on explicit review scores. Across the datasets, LLMs generated numerical sentiment scores directly from qualitative responses and closely matched expert labels, achieving Pearson correlations up to 0.97 and classification accuracy up to 94%. LLMs maintained robustness even when handling data presented in multiple forms and consistently expressed high confidence. In contrast, lexicon-based and transformer baselines did not produce statistically significant results. Among the models tested, GPT-4o-mini achieved performance comparable to larger models at 94% lower cost, supporting scalable deployment. The framework also incorporates model confidence ratings and human-readable rationale explanations (xAI), improving interpretability, transparency, and trust while supporting practical use in product satisfaction assessment. In general, using the PDT tool as a survey method along with a cost efficient LLM for sentiment analysis has the potential to provide for product evaluation with results that are rich in terms of sentiment scores (both numerical and classified sentiment) and in terms of the high-level user impressions of the product that can be used to identify ideas for product development and improvement, as well as marketing ideas for target audiences.

This paper presents an explainable AI-driven framework for predicting net churn among prepaid mobile subscribers. The framework formulates churn prediction as a machine learning task mapped onto an industry reference architecture. Moreover, it introduces a quantile-based feature densification transform that reconciles learning features of unequal length and granularity into a homogeneous design matrix, applies a truncation heuristic that excludes low-confidence subscribers from binary classification to protect against label noise, and generates automated English-language insights describing the impact of each feature on churn propensity. We implement and validate the framework on real production data from a globally leading telco with tens of millions of prepaid subscribers spanning approximately 800 learning features and over 250 TB of commercial, experience, and network data. The truncation heuristic recovers a missed target classification performance at the second future inference period only at a cost of excluding roughly 3% of the subscribers. Our results suggest that subscriber commercial and experience indicators provide stronger churn signals than aggregated radio access network counters despite the greater representation of the latter in the data, and that churn risk rises as subscriber value declines, with high-value segments disproportionately exposed to gradual value leakage rather than outright attrition.

Purpose: To develop an interpretable and trustworthy AI framework that combines deep learning based MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) prediction with interpretable statistical modeling to study structure-pain relationships at scale using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Materials and Methods: We first developed a deep learning framework to predict MOAKS features directly from knee MRIs and incorporated conformal prediction to provide prediction uncertainty quantification. This uncertainty-aware strategy enables explicit filtering of model outputs, retaining only high-confidence MOAKS predictions at the knee level. Second, we applied a longitudinal latent class mixed model (LCMM) to examine associations between key structural abnormalities and four complementary knee pain measurements. Results: Among the three MRI-defined abnormalities (i.e., bone marrow lesions (BML), cartilage loss (CART), and meniscal extrusion (ME)), our framework substantially improved the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and some other metrics. For example, MCC increased from 0.69 to 0.91 for BML, from 0.45 to 0.80 for CART, and from 0.59 to 0.89 for ME. Using these high-confidence predictions, we expanded the sample size to 2,175 knees for the LCMM analysis. Two distinct pain trajectories were identified (rapid and stable pain progression). The estimated odds ratios (95% CI) for the rapid progression group were 1.62 (1.12-2.35) for BML, 1.83 (1.24-2.70) for CART loss, and 2.50 (1.75-3.57) for ME. Conclusion: These results highlight the importance of these structural abnormalities as risk factors for pain and functional progression in osteoarthritis.

Safety standards for ML-based autonomous driving specify the kind of evidence an assurance case must contain (directed cause-and-effect chains, quantified interventional effects, named root-cause variables), yet the XAI literature is organised by output type and technique family (saliency maps, feature attribution, counterfactuals, causal graphs, language traces). SHAP, the most-recommended ADS XAI method, returns a ranked feature list that no implementation effort can convert into a directed chain (Fig.1). We name this mismatch the evidence-type gap. From AMLAS, ISO 26262, ISO21448, ISO/PAS 8800 we derive 19 testable evidentiary criteria across 7 lifecycle stages with representative clause-cited derivations and score six XAI method classes structurally. Causal XAI emerges as structurally required to satisfy the derived criteria at three stages: hazard identification (+62% rubric gap), incident investigation (+50%), and data management (+50%); the verdict set is stable across thresholds T in (0%, 50%]$ and survives a worst-case single-cell flip down to T = 25%. At the remaining four stages, correlational or language-based methods are comparable or sufficient. The rubric identifies structural admissibility (necessary but not sufficient for compliance): an admissible method's specific output content may still be wrong, and validating that fidelity (the edges a fitted SCM produces, the cause a trace names) is the open assurance challenge. A single-VLA proof of concept on 1,996 real-world driving clips (79,840 rows, ten splits) is consistent with each method's observed output type matching its rubric prediction. XAI method selection for ADS safety assurance should be driven by lifecycle-stage evidence demand, not by method popularity.

Operational safety in high-stakes domains such as industrial process control, autonomous, and safety-critical systems, demand reliable hazard identification. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating safety analysis tasks, single-turn, monolithic inference is brittle: it lacks the self-correction, deliberation, and contextual refinement that safety engineers apply iteratively. In this paper, we introduce HAZDIAL, a framework that investigates whether structured agentic dialogue-multi-agent, multi-turn interactions improves the quality of NLP- based hazard identification over single-pass baselines. We systematically compare two dialogue modalities: adversarial debate and constructive discussion, and propose an algorithm-based agentic interaction optimization. We evaluate all configurations against a curated golden dataset using standard classification metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1) and novel dialogue metrics. This work advances the intersection of dialogue systems, multi-agent reasoning, and AI safety, providing an empirical evidence for dialogue-driven hazard analysis.

With the increasing development of Vision-Language Models, it becomes imperative that their predictions are readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, the field of explainability has not kept pace with the multimodal surge. While recent Multimodal Explainable AI (MxAI) methods generate explanations to attribute the interaction between different modalities, current evaluation protocols lack the ground truth required to distinguish between true cross-modal reasoning (e.g., spatial composition) and shallow cross-modal shortcuts (e.g., Bag-of-Words attribute matching). It remains unknown whether MxAI methods faithfully capture synergistic interactions or merely hallucinate reasoning on models acting as simple feature detectors. In this paper, we introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability. Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations. We utilize this controlled environment to train paired ground-truth models on identical architectures: $M_{\text{pure}}$, which learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and $M_{\text{spur}}$, which is structurally forced to rely on cross-modal shortcuts. This behavioral divergence creates a rigorous testbed: a faithful explainer must report distinct reasoning pathways for each model. Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts, highlighting a critical gap in capturing true cross-modal synergy and misrepresenting how multimodal models actually make decisions.

Estimating the economic contribution of a single patent inside a product that embodies tens of thousands of patents is a long-standing unsolved problem in intellectual property economics. We propose PatentXAI, a framework that treats patent valuation as a problem of explainable AI: given a characteristic function v(S) encoding the revenue achievable by patent subset S, a patent's Shapley value measures its fair share of product profit in a way that satisfies efficiency, symmetry, dummy, and additivity. To make computation tractable we restrict each patent's coalition to its Markov Blanket inside a knowledge graph, grounded in the C-SVE conditional independence theorem (Li et al., 2020). Scaling experiments from n=12 to n=100 patents using Pareto-distributed coverage graphs report median Markov Blanket size of 32.9 percent of n at n=100, with 90th-percentile blanket size of 55.2 percent of n, and runtime of 10 milliseconds per patent. Difference against exact ground truth at n=12 is 0.088; difference against a high-sample Monte Carlo reference at n=100 is 0.062 plus or minus 0.003. A dense-component experiment shows that when 80 percent of patents share one component, the blanket correctly expands to cover that dense cluster, and the difference versus reference falls to 0.039 because the pooled computation becomes more accurate on homogeneous portfolios. Profit allocation proceeds hierarchically: exact Shapley distributes total profit among macro-components, then centrality-weighted Shapley distributes each component budget among covering patents. Estimating v(S) from real data is the primary open problem; we distinguish this from the computational contribution and outline a concrete roadmap for empirical validation using public ETSI, USPTO, and Lens.org datasets.

Algorithm registers are public-facing databases that display basic information about algorithms employed in public administration. While several such registers exist across Europe and globally, their capacity to deliver meaningful transparency remains contested. In Germany, the landscape is notably fragmented: no federal-level register exists, yet at least five state- and federal-level initiatives publish information about AI systems with varying scopes and objectives. A recent conceptual proposal by Alina Lorenz (2025), outlines technical and governance requirements for a national AI transparency register in Germany. We repurpose this proposal as an audit instrument, extracting structured checklists from the transparency goals and subgoals it formulates. The resulting checklists, translated from German into English, is made publicly available to support practitioners auditing existing registers or designing new ones. We apply this framework to conduct an external audit of the two main existing German transparency initiatives, Marktplatz der KI-Möglichkeiten and Platform Lernende Systeme, evaluating the extent to which they fulfill the proposed goals. Our audit reveals that several adaptations are likely needed for these registers to serve as an useful transparency instrument. We further propose a visualization of register transparency levels and derive concrete action items for improving existing German platforms.

We present a systematic study of domain-dependent safety behavior in open-weight LLMs: 7 standardized experiments across 7 ethical domains, testing 5 models (12B--70B) in 4,200 interactions with dual-judge validation. Using a dual-condition methodology, each scenario tested in both an analytical framing (identify the harm) and an operational framing (help commit the harm), we find compliance rates vary from 14.7% (human trafficking) to 85.7% (surveillance design), a 71-percentage-point span with non-overlapping cluster-bootstrapped 95% CIs. Trustworthy deployment requires predictable safety behavior, yet we find compliance is highly context-dependent: the same model (Mistral Nemo 12B) provides surveillance designs in 100% of requests but assists with trafficking in only 26.7%. This unpredictability is opaque to deployers: the technical framing bypass, where harmful requests reframed as engineering problems override safety training without any external signal that refusal thresholds have shifted. Within-domain heterogeneity reaches 84.4pp, meaning safety behavior cannot be predicted even at the domain level. A replication on five frontier closed models (GPT-4.1/5.2, Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus 4.x; n=4,163 responses) accessed via the GitHub Copilot CLI deployed-product surface reproduces the same domain stratification, attenuated in absolute level but identical in shape, with the two low-codification domains (science fraud, surveillance) again the most permissive. These results show that current safety mechanisms lack the transparency and consistency required for trustworthy AI deployment.

Position: AI Governance Needs ISO-like Interoperability Protocols, Not Just Laws

Azmine Toushik Wasi, Mst Rafia Islam, Mahfuz Ahmed Anik +3

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems become deeply integrated into critical global infrastructure, the urgency for robust governance frameworks has intensified. However, current approaches, led by jurisdiction-specific laws, policies, and voluntary frameworks such as the EU AI Act, China's algorithm governance, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework in the U.S., create a fragmented regulatory landscape. In this position paper, we argue that \textbf{\textit{AI governance must be built not on laws alone, but on ISO-like interoperability protocols that enable standardized, machine-readable risk communication across borders}}. Drawing on the success of the GDPR, which was operationalized through standards like ISO 27001 and Privacy by Design, we propose the development of standardized AI \textit{nutrition labels} containing unified metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to facilitate cross-jurisdictional compliance. These manifests would lower barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), reduce redundant regulatory efforts, and build public trust. The paper addresses concerns that standards may stifle innovation by advocating for modular, versioned protocols designed to evolve in tandem with technological change. Overall, we call for a shift from siloed legal compliance toward interoperable technical conformance, enabling a shared global language for responsible AI deployment.