Research Papers

Public awareness of AI ethics plays a crucial role in fostering the responsible and sustainable development of AI technology. However, finding effective ways to promote public understanding of the ethical risks of AI remains a challenge. Given the complexity of AI ethical issues and the cognitive limitations of the public, this review paper proposes a conceptual framework for inclusive learning analytics with embedded data comics. Data comics help transform complex and abstract AI ethics cases into compelling and relatable stories, fostering public empathy and introspection. More importantly, inclusive learning analytics targets not only people of different demographic attributes, but also different mindsets with inherent cognitive biases. By providing equal and easily accessible channels for AI ethics issues, we aim to encourage the public to reflect on AI ethics incidents from multiple perspectives and develop the habit of continuous learning to adapt to evolving AI technologies and ethical risks.

Rethinking XAI Evaluation: A Human-Centered Audit of Shapley Benchmarks in High-Stakes Settings

Inês Oliveira e Silva, Sérgio Jesus, Iker Perez +4

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

This study investigates perceptions and use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools among students and faculty in statistics and data science at a historically Black college or university. Survey data from 119 valid student responses and 14 faculty responses were used to examine familiarity, usage patterns, perceived benefits, awareness of limitations, and instructional support needs. Students reported substantial use of GenAI, with ChatGPT as the dominant tool, primarily for coding assistance and writing support. Although student perceptions of AI in data science workflows and careers were generally positive, confidence in interpreting AI-generated outputs was limited, and concerns about accuracy, reliability, and over-reliance were common. Faculty also viewed GenAI favorably, but self-rated proficiency and the frequency of classroom integration remained limited. Comparisons across student subgroups suggested that familiarity with GenAI and awareness of its limitations varied more by academic level than by gender. These findings highlight a gap between AI adoption and AI literacy and underscore the need for structured training, validation practices, and clearer institutional guidance for responsible AI integration in data science education.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. This limitation poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount. In this paper, we introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs. DAVinCI operates in two stages: (i) it attributes generated claims to internal model components and external sources; (ii) it verifies each claim using entailment-based reasoning and confidence calibration. We evaluate DAVinCI across multiple datasets, including FEVER and CLIMATE-FEVER, and compare its performance against standard verification-only baselines. Our results show that DAVinCI significantly improves classification accuracy, attribution precision, recall, and F1-score by 5-20%. Through an extensive ablation study, we isolate the contributions of evidence span selection, recalibration thresholds, and retrieval quality. We also release a modular DAVinCI implementation that can be integrated into existing LLM pipelines. By bridging attribution and verification, DAVinCI offers a scalable path to auditable, trustworthy AI systems. This work contributes to the growing effort to make LLMs not only powerful but also accountable.

The current "notice and consent" paradigm is broken: consent dialogues are often manipulative, and users cannot realistically read or understand every privacy policy. While recent LLM-based tools empower users seeking active control, many with limited time or motivation prefer full automation. However, fully autonomous solutions risk hallucinations and opaque decisions, undermining trust. I propose a middle ground - a Privacy Guardian Agent that automates routine consent choices using user profiles and contextual awareness while recognizing uncertainty. It escalates unclear or high-risk cases to the user, maintaining a human-in-the-loop only when necessary. To ensure agency and transparency, the agent's reasoning on its autonomous decisions is reviewable, allowing for user recourse. For problematic cases, even with minimal consent, it alerts the user and suggests switching to an alternative site. This approach aims to reduce consent fatigue while preserving trust and meaningful user autonomy.

Language-based AI is increasingly deployed for mental health support, yet trust is evaluated in interdisciplinary but operationally misaligned ways: NLP and AI work measures robustness, safety, privacy, and explanations, while psychotherapy, HCI, and regulatory work emphasize therapeutic fidelity, lived experience, empathy, and reliance. Empathetic chatbots can elicit strong user trust without commensurate safety, while safer systems are under-trusted when their boundaries are opaque, a calibration gap no single community owns. Through a structured scoping synthesis of 61 papers, we survey this landscape into a three-layer framework separating (L1) human-oriented trust, (L2) interaction-oriented trustworthiness, and (L3) AI-oriented trustworthiness, and map five stakeholder perspectives onto these layers. We outline a research agenda for building socio-technically aligned trustworthy AI for mental health support, highlighting that the central objective should shift from maximizing perceived trust to calibrating human trust to demonstrated interaction- and AI-level trustworthiness.

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) is another technology that has been developing in the last few years as a relevant technique to improve network programmability and administration. Nonetheless, its centralized design presents a major security issue, which requires effective intrusion detection systems. The SDN-specific machine learning-based intrusion detection system described in this paper is innovative because it is trained and tested on the InSDN dataset which models attack scenarios and realistic traffic patterns in SDN. Our approach incorporates a comprehensive preprocessing pipeline, feature selection via Mutual Information, and a novel ensemble learning model, SDNGuardStack, which combines multiple base learners to enhance detection accuracy and efficiency. In addition, we include explainable AI methods, including SHAP to add transparency to model predictions, which helps security analysts respond to incidents. The experiments prove that SDNGuard-Stack has an accuracy rate of 99.98% and a Cohen Kappa of 0.9998, surpassing other models, and at the same time being interpretable and practically executable. It is interesting to see such features like Flow ID, Bwd Header Len, and Src Port as the most important factors in the model predictions. The work is a step towards closing the gap between performance intrusion detection and realistic deployment in SDN, which will lead to the creation of secure and resilient network infrastructures.

We introduce TravelFraudBench (TFG), a configurable benchmark for evaluating graph neural networks (GNNs) on fraud ring detection in travel platform graphs. Existing benchmarks--YelpChi, Amazon-Fraud, Elliptic, PaySim--cover single node types or domain-generic patterns with no mechanism to evaluate across structurally distinct fraud ring topologies. TFG simulates three travel-specific ring types--ticketing fraud (star topology with shared device/IP clusters), ghost hotel schemes (reviewer x hotel bipartite cliques), and account takeover rings (loyalty transfer chains)--in a heterogeneous graph with 9 node types and 12 edge types. Ring size, count, fraud rate, scale (500 to 200,000 nodes), and composition are fully configurable. We evaluate six methods--MLP, GraphSAGE, RGCN-proj, HAN, RGCN, and PC-GNN--under a ring-based split where each ring appears entirely in one partition, eliminating transductive label leakage. GraphSAGE achieves AUC=0.992 and RGCN-proj AUC=0.987, outperforming the MLP baseline (AUC=0.938) by 5.5 and 5.0 pp, confirming graph structure adds substantial discriminative power. HAN (AUC=0.935) is a negative result, matching the MLP baseline. On the ring recovery task (>=80% of ring members flagged simultaneously), GraphSAGE achieves 100% recovery across all ring types; MLP recovers only 17-88%. The edge-type ablation shows device and IP co-occurrence are the primary signals: removing uses_device drops AUC by 5.2 pp. TFG is released as an open-source Python package (MIT license) with PyG, DGL, and NetworkX exporters and pre-generated datasets at https://huggingface.co/datasets/bsajja7/travel-fraud-graphs, with Croissant metadata including Responsible AI fields.

Repeated praise, canned reassurance, familiar contrasts, and conspicuous vocabulary are recurring subjects in discussions of large language models. Their interpretation depends on context: a conventional phrase may be useful, while a fluent answer may reinforce a false belief. This critical review examines linguistic habits and sycophancy across eight developer families: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI, ByteDance, Moonshot AI, DeepSeek, and Xiaomi. We verify current public offerings against official release and API documentation, with an evidence cutoff of 1 October 2026. We synthesize research on lexical overrepresentation, stylistic variation, social warmth, and agreement, alongside benchmark methods and dated English and Chinese public discussions. The research reviewed documents recurring linguistic patterns and agreement that distorts judgment; comparable measurements of the newest releases are sparse in the retrieved set. Current user reports include both complaints and improved writing, with experiences varying by task and prompting. We propose separate measures of recurrence, contextual appropriateness, and belief distortion, with precise service records and language-specific annotation. This framework makes claims about writing quality and conversational reliability testable as model services change.

Beyond Semantic Similarity: A Component-Wise Evaluation Framework for Medical Question Answering Systems with Health Equity Implications

Abu Noman Md Sakib, Md. Main Oddin Chisty, Zijie Zhang

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support patients in addressing medical questions is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, most of the measures currently used to evaluate the performance of these models in this context only measure how closely a model's answers match semantically, and therefore do not provide a true indication of the model's medical accuracy or of the health equity risks associated with it. To address these shortcomings, we present a new evaluation framework for medical question answering called VB-Score (Verification-Based Score) that provides a separate evaluation of the four components of entity recognition, semantic similarity, factual consistency, and structured information completeness for medical question-answering models. We perform rigorous reviews of the performance of three well-known and widely used LLMs on 48 public health-related topics taken from high-quality, authoritative information sources. Based on our analyses, we discover a major discrepancy between the models' semantic and entity accuracy. Our assessments of the performance of all three models show that each of them has almost uniformly severe performance failures when evaluated against our criteria. Our findings indicate alarming performance disparities across various public health topics, with most of the models exhibiting 13.8% lower performance (compared to an overall average) for all the public health topics that relate to chronic conditions that occur in older and minority populations, which indicates the existence of what's known as condition-based algorithmic discrimination. Our findings also demonstrate that prompt engineering alone does not compensate for basic architectural limitations on how these models perform in extracting medical entities and raise the question of whether semantic evaluation alone is a sufficient measure of medical AI safety.

Graph representation learning has achieved notable success in encoding graph-structured data into latent vector spaces, enabling a wide range of downstream tasks. However, these node representations remain opaque and difficult to interpret. Existing explainability methods primarily focus on supervised settings or on explaining individual representation dimensions, leaving a critical gap in explaining the overall structure of node representations. In this paper, we propose TACENR (Task-Agnostic Contrastive Explanations for Node Representations), a local explanation method that identifies not only attribute features but also proximity and structural ones that contribute the most in the representation space. TACENR builds on contrastive learning, through which we learn a similarity function in the representation space, revealing which are the features that play an important role in the representation of a node. While our focus is on task-agnostic explanations, TACENR can be applied to supervised scenarios as well. Experimental results demonstrate that proximity and structural features play a significant role in shaping node representations and that our supervised variant performs comparably to existing task-specific approaches in identifying the most impactful features.