Research Papers

Innovative HealthTech teams develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in contexts where ethical expectations and organizational priorities must be balanced under severe resource constraints. While Responsible AI practices are expected to guide the design and evaluation of such systems, they frequently remain abstract or poorly aligned with the operational realities of early-stage innovation. At the ecosystem level, this misalignment disproportionately affects disadvantaged projects and founders, therefore limiting the diversity of problem-areas under consideration, solutions, stakeholder perspectives, and population datasets represented in AI-enabled healthcare systems. Visualization provides a practical mechanism for supporting decision-making across the AI lifecycle. When developed via a rigorous and collaborative design process, structured on domain knowledge and designed around real-world constraints, visual interfaces can operate as effective sociotechnical governance artifacts enabling responsible decision-making. Grounded in innovation-oriented Human-Centered Computing methodologies, we synthesize insights from a series of design studies conducted via a longitudinal visualization research program, a case study centered on governance dashboard design in a translational setting, and a survey of a cohort of early-stage HealthTech startups. Based on these findings, we articulate design process implications for governance-oriented visualization systems: co-creation with stakeholders, alignment with organizational maturity and context, and support for heterogeneous roles and tasks among others. This work contributes actionable guidance for designing Responsible AI governance dashboards that support decision-making and accountability in early-stage health innovation, and suggests that ecosystem-level coordination can enable more scalable and diverse AI innovation in healthcare.

As climate-related hazards intensify, conventional early warning systems (EWS) disseminate alerts rapidly but often fail to trigger timely protective actions, leading to preventable losses and inequities. We introduce Climate RADAR (Risk-Aware, Dynamic, and Action Recommendation system), a generative AI-based reliability layer that reframes disaster communication from alerts delivered to actions executed. It integrates meteorological, hydrological, vulnerability, and social data into a composite risk index and employs guardrail-embedded large language models (LLMs) to deliver personalized recommendations across citizen, volunteer, and municipal interfaces. Evaluation through simulations, user studies, and a municipal pilot shows improved outcomes, including higher protective action execution, reduced response latency, and increased usability and trust. By combining predictive analytics, behavioral science, and responsible AI, Climate RADAR advances people-centered, transparent, and equitable early warning systems, offering practical pathways toward compliance-ready disaster resilience infrastructures.

As financial institutions increasingly adopt machine learning for credit risk assessment, the persistence of algorithmic bias remains a critical barrier to equitable financial inclusion. This study provides a comprehensive audit of structural gender bias within the Taiwan Credit Default dataset, specifically challenging the prevailing doctrine of "fairness through blindness." Despite the removal of explicit protected attributes and the application of industry standard fairness interventions, our results demonstrate that gendered predictive signals remain deeply embedded within non-sensitive features. Utilizing SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), we identify that variables such as Marital Status, Age, and Credit Limit function as potent proxies for gender, allowing models to maintain discriminatory pathways while appearing statistically fair. To mathematically quantify this leakage, we employ an adversarial inverse modeling framework. Our findings reveal that the protected gender attribute can be reconstructed from purely non-sensitive financial features with an ROC AUC score of 0.65, demonstrating that traditional fairness audits are insufficient for detecting implicit structural bias. These results advocate for a shift from surface-level statistical parity toward causal-aware modeling and structural accountability in financial AI.

The climate crisis requires responses that integrate scientific, ethical, social, and technological perspectives. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful tool in climate modelling, environmental monitoring, and energy optimisation, yet its growing use also raises critical environmental, ethical, legal, and social questions. This contribution examines the ambivalent role of AI in the ecological crisis, addressing both its promises and its risks. On the one hand, AI supports improvements in climate forecasting, renewable energy management, and real-time detection of environmental degradation. On the other hand, the energy demands of data centres, resource-intensive hardware production, algorithmic bias, corporate concentration of power, and technocratic decision-making reveal contradictions that challenge its sustainability. The discussion explores these issues through interdisciplinary lenses, including environmental ethics, philosophy of technology, and legal governance, and concludes with recommendations for socially just, ecologically responsible, and democratically accountable uses of AI. Rather than assuming AI as an inherently sustainable solution, this analysis argues that its contribution to climate action depends fundamentally on the values, institutions, and power structures that shape its development.

From school playgrounds to corporate boardrooms, status hierarchies -- rank orderings based on respect and perceived competence -- are universal features of human social organization. Language models trained on human-generated text inevitably encounter these hierarchical patterns embedded in language, raising the question of whether they might reproduce such dynamics in multi-agent settings. This thesis investigates when and how language models form status hierarchies by adapting Berger et al.'s (1972) expectation states framework. I create multi-agent scenarios where separate language model instances complete sentiment classification tasks, are introduced with varying status characteristics (e.g., credentials, expertise), then have opportunities to revise their initial judgments after observing their partner's responses. The dependent variable is deference, the rate at which models shift their ratings toward their partner's position based on status cues rather than task information. Results show that language models form significant status hierarchies when capability is equal (35 percentage point asymmetry, p < .001), but capability differences dominate status cues, with the most striking effect being that high-status assignments reduce higher-capability models' deference rather than increasing lower-capability models' deference. The implications for AI safety are significant: status-seeking behavior could introduce deceptive strategies, amplify discriminatory biases, and scale across distributed deployments far faster than human hierarchies form organically. This work identifies emergent social behaviors in AI systems and highlights a previously underexplored dimension of the alignment challenge.

Explainable AI (XAI) is frequently positioned as a technical problem of revealing the inner workings of an AI model. This position is affected by unexamined onto-epistemological assumptions: meaning is treated as immanent to the model, the explainer is positioned outside the system, and a causal structure is presumed recoverable through computational techniques. In this paper, we draw on Barad's agential realism to develop an alternative onto-epistemology of XAI. We propose that interpretations are material-discursive performances that emerge from situated entanglements of the AI model with humans, context, and the interpretative apparatus. To develop this position, we read a comprehensive set of XAI methods through agential realism and reveal the assumptions and limitations that underpin several of these methods. We then articulate the framework's ethical dimension and propose design directions for XAI interfaces that support emergent interpretation, using a speculative text-to-music interface as a case study.

The integration of Conversational Agents (CAs) into daily life offers opportunities to tackle global challenges, leading to the emergence of Conversational AI for Social Good (CAI4SG). This paper examines the advancements of CAI4SG using a role-based framework that categorizes systems according to their AI autonomy and emotional engagement. This framework emphasizes the importance of considering the role of CAs in social good contexts, such as serving as empathetic supporters in mental health or functioning as assistants for accessibility. Additionally, exploring the deployment of CAs in various roles raises unique challenges, including algorithmic bias, data privacy, and potential socio-technical harms. These issues can differ based on the CA's role and level of engagement. This paper provides an overview of the current landscape, offering a role-based understanding that can guide future research and design aimed at the equitable, ethical, and effective development of CAI4SG.

This white paper examines the technical foundations of European AI standardization under the AI Act. It explains how harmonized standards enable the presumption of conformity mechanism, describes the CEN/CENELEC standardization process, and analyzes why AI poses unique standardization challenges including stochastic behavior, data dependencies, immature evaluation practices, and lifecycle dynamics. The paper argues that AI systems are typically components within larger sociotechnical systems, requiring a layered approach where horizontal standards define process obligations and evidence structures while sectoral profiles specify domain-specific thresholds and acceptance criteria. It proposes a workable scheme based on risk management, reproducible technical checks redefined as stability of measured properties, structured documentation, comprehensive logging, and assurance cases that evolve over the system lifecycle. The paper demonstrates that despite methodological difficulties, technical standards remain essential for translating legal obligations into auditable engineering practice and enabling scalable conformity assessment across providers, assessors, and enforcement authorities

In the network security domain, due to practical issues -- including imbalanced data and heterogeneous legitimate network traffic -- adversarial attacks in machine learning-based NIDSs have been viewed as attack packets misclassified as benign. Due to this prevailing belief, the possibility of (maliciously) perturbed benign packets being misclassified as attack has been largely ignored. In this paper, we demonstrate that this is not only theoretically possible, but also a particular threat to NIDS. In particular, we uncover a practical cyberattack, FPR manipulation attack (FPA), especially targeting industrial IoT networks, where domain-specific knowledge of the widely used MQTT protocol is exploited and a systematic simple packet-level perturbation is performed to alter the labels of benign traffic samples without employing traditional gradient-based or non-gradient-based methods. The experimental evaluations demonstrate that this novel attack results in a success rate of 80.19% to 100%. In addition, while estimating impacts in the Security Operations Center, we observe that even a small fraction of false positive alerts, irrespective of different budget constraints and alert traffic intensities, can increase the delay of genuine alerts investigations up to 2 hr in a single day under normal operating conditions. Furthermore, a series of relevant statistical and XAI analyses is conducted to understand the key factors behind this remarkable success. Finally, we explore the effectiveness of the FPA packets to enhance models' robustness through adversarial training and investigate the changes in decision boundaries accordingly.

AI Agents vs. Human Investigators: Balancing Automation, Security, and Expertise in Cyber Forensic Analysis

Sneha Sudhakaran, Naresh Kshetri

In an era where cyber threats are rapidly evolving, the reliability of cyber forensic analysis has become increasingly critical for effective digital investigations and cybersecurity responses. AI agents are being adopted across digital forensic practices due to their ability to automate processes such as anomaly detection, evidence classification, and behavioral pattern recognition, significantly enhancing scalability and reducing investigation timelines. However, the characteristics that make AI indispensable also introduce notable risks. AI systems, often trained on biased or incomplete datasets, can produce misleading results, including false positives and false negatives, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of forensic investigations. This study presents a meticulous comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the most used AI agent, ChatGPT, and human forensic investigators in the realm of cyber forensic analysis. Our research reveals critical limitations within AI-driven approaches, demonstrating scenarios in which sophisticated or novel cyber threats remain undetected due to the rigid pattern-based nature of AI systems. Conversely, our analysis highlights the crucial role that human forensic investigators play in mitigating these risks. Through adaptive decision-making, ethical reasoning, and contextual understanding, human investigators effectively identify subtle anomalies and threats that may evade automated detection systems. To reinforce our findings, we conducted comprehensive reliability testing of forensic techniques using multiple cyber threat scenarios. These tests confirmed that while AI agents significantly improve the efficiency of routine analyses, human oversight remains crucial in ensuring accuracy and comprehensiveness of the results.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) readiness in the Global South extends beyond infrastructure to include curriculum design, workforce development, and cross-sector collaboration. Bangladesh, ranked 82nd in the 2023 Oxford Insights AI Readiness Index, exhibits significant deficits in technology capacity and research ecosystems, despite strong governmental visions. While HCI and ICTD research have explored digital inclusion and responsible AI, little empirical work examines how educational, industrial, and policy domains intersect to shape readiness. We present a multi-method qualitative study of AI readiness in Bangladesh, combining institutional analyses, 59 stakeholder interviews, and curriculum benchmarking against global exemplars. Findings reveal outdated curricula, limited faculty upskilling, inadequate computing resources, entrenched gender disparities, and the near-total absence of AI ethics instruction. We contribute empirical mapping of current practices, identification of structural and cultural barriers, and actionable pathways for embedding human-centered, inclusive, and responsible AI practices into national agendas, advancing equitable innovation in emerging AI ecosystems.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) produce highly nuanced text simplifications, developers currently lack tools for a holistic, efficient, and reproducible diagnosis of their behavior. This paper introduces the Simplification Profiler, a diagnostic toolkit that generates a multidimensional, interpretable fingerprint of simplified texts. Multiple aggregated simplifications of a model result in a model's fingerprint. This novel evaluation paradigm is particularly vital for languages, where the data scarcity problem is magnified when creating flexible models for diverse target groups rather than a single, fixed simplification style. We propose that measuring a model's unique behavioral signature is more relevant in this context as an alternative to correlating metrics with human preferences. We operationalize this with a practical meta-evaluation of our fingerprints' descriptive power, which bypasses the need for large, human-rated datasets. This test measures if a simple linear classifier can reliably identify various model configurations by their created simplifications, confirming that our metrics are sensitive to a model's specific characteristics. The Profiler can distinguish high-level behavioral variations between prompting strategies and fine-grained changes from prompt engineering, including few-shot examples. Our complete feature set achieves classification F1-scores up to 71.9 %, improving upon simple baselines by over 48 percentage points. The Simplification Profiler thus offers developers a granular, actionable analysis to build more effective and truly adaptive text simplification systems.