Research Papers

Existing guardrail systems for large language model agents operate as binary classifiers that block unsafe content, leaving organizations to discard failing outputs and retry from scratch. We introduce RAIL Guard, a closed-loop responsible AI pipeline that evaluates LLM outputs across eight measurable dimensions and iteratively remediates failing outputs through an evaluate-rewrite-reevaluate loop. We evaluate the pipeline across three experiments on four frontier LLMs and 4,276 content outputs plus 6,400 agent tool-call scenarios. Closed-loop remediation achieves 96.9% convergence versus 49.1% for block-and-retry, though the highest-convergence method reduces utility by 22.3%; feedback-driven self-repair achieves 86.6% convergence on fixable dimensions with no significant utility loss (p = 0.177). Pre-tool-call evaluation reduces unsafe agent executions by 33% (p = 0.007) with zero impact on task completion. We identify a key distinction between fixable dimensions that respond to remediation and structural dimensions (Transparency at 93.0%, Accountability at 92.8%, and Inclusivity at 82.5% failure) that require architectural rather than algorithmic solutions. The system is available as open-source SDKs.

AI safety research has mainly focused on two areas: technical alignment (ensuring AI systems produce human-aligned outputs) and the regulation of generative AI's societal impacts (including unemployment risk and labor market disruption). However, an equally important dimension remains underexplored: the risk inherent in dependence on AI systems themselves. In this position paper, we argue that AI safety research should address AI Lock-In, the phenomenon whereby excessive reliance on AI systems leads to human deskilling, diminishes human capacity for independent functioning, and creates systemic vulnerabilities when AI systems become unavailable or compromised. We highlight that AI Lock-In is a systemic threat that is already emerging at individual, societal, and national levels, one that could be dramatically amplified by AI service disruptions or geopolitical conflicts. Drawing on detailed scenarios, we investigate how AI Lock-In emerges and escalates across multiple levels, ranging from individual skill atrophy to national-scale infrastructure failures. To address this, we provide guidance on how such risks can be mitigated and prepared for at each level. We contend that proactively addressing AI Lock-In before such dependencies become entrenched, or even irreversible, is essential for preserving individual autonomy and national security.

Explainable AI (XAI) helps users interpret model behavior and identify potential faults. Agentic XAI systems use Large Language Models (LLMs) to make explanations more accessible through natural-language interaction, but they can also produce plausible yet unfaithful explanations. This risk arises because unreliable XAI outputs for complex models can be amplified by LLMs and mislead users. We propose Faithful Agentic XAI (FAX), a framework that improves explanation faithfulness through explicit verification. FAX decomposes draft explanations into claims and cross-checks them against inherently faithful tools, filtering unsupported or contradictory claims before final generation. We also introduce CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, an open-world reinforcement learning benchmark with complex policies, diverse goals, and challenging scenarios for assessing model-specific faithfulness. On CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, FAX improves simulation faithfulness from 0.20 for the strongest baseline to 0.46 while maintaining high informativeness, relevance, and fluency. On three tabular benchmarks, FAX performs competitively with prior Agentic XAI baselines, but our analysis shows that these settings can conflate task accuracy with model-specific faithfulness. These findings show that explicit verification is essential for faithful Agentic XAI and that that faithfulness benchmarks must be designed to test explanations against the behavior of the target model itself.

Show, Don't TELL: Explainable AI-Generated Text Detection

Aldan Creo, Suraj Ranganath

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.

Drawing on Ullmann-Margalit's concept of opting (transformative, irrevocable, and shadowed by foreclosed alternatives), we show that current AI systems raise a profound ethical problem that existing AI ethics has not fully captured: the illusion of opting, in which persons and groups encounter the deceptive appearance of meaningful consequential choice while the agency needed to become genuinely capable of choosing is weakened. Against approaches that treat AI primarily as an optimizer of already given ends, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated by whether they protect and cultivate meta-capacity against the illusion of opting: the socially and institutionally scaffolded agentive capacity through which means and ends can be formed, contested, revised, and owned. This reframing is especially urgent for disadvantaged populations, who are least able to absorb the costs of the illusion of opting when AI-mediated pathways misdirect behavior and action. We propose three normative imperatives for AI-mediated consequential decisions: existential honesty, which acknowledges the limits of prediction; ecological rationality, which situates guidance within heterogeneous lived ecologies; and counterfactual reparation, which acknowledges and repairs foreclosed alternatives when AI-mediated decision-making pathways fail.

Hybrid interpretable models combine a transparent component with a black-box model by assigning some examples to the former and deferring the rest to the latter. While this design enables flexible tradeoffs between accuracy and interpretability, it also raises a distinct procedural fairness concern: some demographic groups may systematically receive interpretable decisions, while others are disproportionately routed to a black box. We formalize this issue as Interpretability Coverage Disparity (ICD), a demographic-parity-style measure applied to the routing decision of hybrid interpretable models. Using tools from predictive multiplicity, we study ICD across four hybrid interpretable learning methods, three standard fairness benchmark datasets, and multiple sensitive attributes. Our experiments reveal substantial ICD in intermediate transparency regimes, where both the interpretable and black-box components are actively used. We further show that simple coverage-disparity constraints can significantly reduce ICD in exact hybrid learning methods, with marginal impact on accuracy and sparsity. In several settings, ICD mitigation also improves standard algorithmic fairness metrics. These results show that hybrid interpretable models should be audited not only for predictive fairness, but also for how they allocate interpretability across individuals and groups.

Artificial Intelligence has achieved remarkable success across diverse application domains. However, its vulnerability to adversarial attacks poses significant challenges to reliability, security, and trustworthiness. Adversarial machine learning demonstrates that even highly accurate models can be manipulated through carefully crafted perturbations, raising serious concerns in safety critical systems such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous technologies. In parallel, quantum computing has emerged as a transformative paradigm capable of addressing complex computational problems through principles such as superposition, entanglement, and quantum interference. The convergence of these fields has led to the emergence of quantum artificial intelligence, which explores how quantum techniques can enhance learning efficiency, scalability, and robustness. This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of adversarial machine learning and existing defense strategies, followed by an accessible introduction to quantum computing and quantum machine learning models. It further presents conceptual frameworks for quantum-enhanced adversarial robustness, emphasizing quantum optimization, feature mapping, and hybrid quantum classical architectures. Practical applications, key challenges, and future research directions are also discussed to support the development of secure and trustworthy AI systems.

Recent advances in deep learning have enabled increasingly accurate electroencephalography (EEG)-based classification of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), but the decision-making processes of high-capacity models remain difficult to interpret. This study investigates multiple post-hoc explainability methods applied to an InceptionTime architecture trained for EEG-based MDD detection. The analysis includes Shapley-based, gradient-based, and perturbation-based attribution approaches: DeepSHAP, Integrated Gradients, GradCAM, Occlusion, and Permutation Feature Importance. Explainability analysis was performed within a subject-level stratified 5-fold cross-validation framework using global attribution aggregation across EEG segments and subjects. The evaluated methods revealed partially convergent attribution patterns, with recurring emphasis on frontal, temporal, and posterior EEG regions, particularly in the right hemisphere. Quantitative comparison demonstrated substantial agreement between gradient- and perturbation-based approaches, while DeepSHAP produced comparatively distinct attribution distributions. At the same time, variability between explainability methods highlighted the influence of methodological assumptions on the resulting explanations. Overall, the results suggest that different post-hoc explainability approaches capture partially overlapping relevance structures in EEG-based deep learning models for depression detection. Although the observed attribution patterns are broadly consistent with several previous EEG studies of MDD, the analysis should be interpreted as exploratory rather than evidence of definitive neurophysiological biomarkers or clinical applicability. The study highlights both the usefulness and limitations of post-hoc explainability for interpreting black-box EEG classifiers in psychiatric applications.

Parallel Adaptive Multi-Objective Evolutionary Learning of Discretized Bayesian Network Classifiers for Clinical Data

Damy M. F. Ha, Thalea Schlender, Yvette M. van der Linden +2

Bayesian Networks (BNs) are of interest from an explainable AI viewpoint, offering transparent probabilistic models for decision support. Baymex is a recently introduced multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for learning discretized BNs, enabling experts to trade-off different objectives of interest, such as likelihood, model complexity, and prior beliefs. While Baymex has been shown to outperform state-of-the-art BN learning approaches, Baymex still 1) requires a lot of computation time and 2) has only been evaluated on synthetic data. To improve scalability, we introduce a parallelization strategy as well as a mechanism that enables adaptively steering optimization toward networks that overfit less. We furthermore reconfigure Baymex to train a BN classifier through multi-objective optimization of cross-entropy loss and the BIC complexity term so as to evaluate its performance on real-world clinical classification tasks. Besides observing speedups up to over 54 times on a 16-core CPU, comparisons against clinically familiar baselines (decision trees, logistic regression, naive Bayes, and random forests) on two open-source (RADCURE and SUPPORT) and one in-house dataset, show that Baymex obtains statistically similar or better predictive performance while producing compact, clinically inspectable BNs. Importantly, Baymex finds multiple plausible BN classifiers that contain predictors consistent with established clinical factors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed artificial intelligence from primarily generative systems into increasingly capable reasoning agents. Recent advances in theorem proving, autoformalization, symbolic reasoning, and tool-augmented language models demonstrate substantial progress toward machine-assisted formal reasoning. However, current reasoning systems still suffer from hidden logical inconsistencies, hallucinated symbolic transitions, unsupported theorem applications, and limited reliability guarantees. Existing approaches remain fragmented across formal verification, runtime assurance, neuro-symbolic reasoning and trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) research communities. This paper introduces ReasonOps, a unified operational paradigm for trustworthy verified reasoning systems. Inspired by operational ecosystems such as DevOps and MLOps, ReasonOps treats reasoning as a continuously monitored, verifiable, reliability-aware operational process rather than an isolated inference task. The proposed paradigm integrates semantic interpretation, autoformalization, symbolic reasoning, theorem proving, runtime assurance, probabilistic reliability estimation, and adaptive correction into a unified reasoning lifecycle. The paper further presents the ReasonOps architecture, demonstrates its workflow using an autonomous braking system analysis example, and discusses its potential role in future safety-critical autonomous AI systems. We argue that operational reasoning paradigms such as ReasonOps may become foundational infrastructure for next-generation trustworthy AI ecosystems.

Online recruitment platforms require recommendation methods capable of retrieving relevant job opportunities from large and heterogeneous collections of job postings. Keyword-based search is efficient and interpretable, but it may fail to retrieve relevant postings when equivalent roles are expressed using different terminology. This study presents a metadata-driven job recommendation system that combines TF-IDF lexical matching, Sentence-BERT semantic retrieval, query-aware filtering, optional Cross-Encoder re-ranking, and explanation generation. The proposed system utilizes structured metadata fields including job title, company name, location, seniority level, job function, employment type, and industry without relying on full job descriptions or user interaction histories. Experiments conducted on a cleaned LinkedIn job posting dataset containing 31262 records demonstrate that the best hybrid configuration achieved a Precision at 10 score of 0.8032 and an nDCG at 10 score of 0.9496. Under the internal evaluation protocol, Cross-Encoder re-ranking improved Precision at 10 from 0.7896 to 0.7948 and nDCG at 10 from 0.9666 to 0.9739. These findings indicate that lexical and semantic retrieval techniques can be effectively combined to provide explainable job recommendations when only structured metadata is available.

\begin{quote} The biases in Large Language Models' (LLMs) outputs remain inadequately theorised, particularly from the perspective of the Global South. This article reports on a small-scale exploratory study in which identical prompts were submitted to four major LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Copilot), firstly, prompting for stories using names suggestive of specific racial and gender communities, and secondly asking questions about `development'. Drawing on critical AI scholarship and postcolonial theory, we argue that LLM outputs are patterned in ways that reproduce racial hierarchies, gender asymmetries, and Western-centric epistemic frameworks. We argue that these biases are insidious: they operate below the threshold of both obvious error and overt prejudice, and instead are subtly embedded in narrative structure and emotional template. Simply put, women, in LLM narratives have rich interior lives, while men make plans. Black people face hardships while white people navigate the world with agency. And explanations as to the economic world order fail to consider Southern explanations. The models perform plausibility while reproducing dominance. We conclude that universities require structural critique of these technologies rather than unreflective adoption, and that critical AI literacy must engage seriously with questions of whose knowledge systems are reproduced and legitimated, or marginalised and undermined.