Research Papers

Recent advances in deep learning have led to its widespread adoption across diverse domains, including medical imaging. This progress is driven by increasingly sophisticated model architectures, such as ResNets, Vision Transformers, and Hybrid Convolutional Neural Networks, that offer enhanced performance at the cost of greater complexity. This complexity often compromises model explainability and interpretability. SHAP has emerged as a prominent method for providing interpretable visualizations that aid domain experts in understanding model predictions. However, SHAP explanations can be unstable and unreliable in the presence of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty. In this study, we address this challenge by using Dirichlet posterior sampling and Dempster-Shafer theory to quantify the uncertainty that arises from these unstable explanations in medical imaging applications. The framework uses a belief, plausible, and fusion map approach alongside statistical quantitative analysis to produce quantification of uncertainty in SHAP. Furthermore, we evaluated our framework on three medical imaging datasets with varying class distributions, image qualities, and modality types which introduces noise due to varying image resolutions and modality-specific aspect covering the examples from pathology, ophthalmology, and radiology, introducing significant epistemic uncertainty.

Recent progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) has substantially advanced the automation of software engineering (SE) tasks, enabling complex activities such as code generation and code summarization. However, the black-box nature of LLMs remains a major barrier to their adoption in high-stakes and safety-critical domains, where explainability and transparency are vital for trust, accountability, and effective human supervision. Despite increasing interest in explainable AI for software engineering, existing methods lack domain-specific explanations aligned with how practitioners reason about SE artifacts. To address this gap, we introduce FeatureSHAP, the first fully automated, model-agnostic explainability framework tailored to software engineering tasks. Based on Shapley values, FeatureSHAP attributes model outputs to high-level input features through systematic input perturbation and task-specific similarity comparisons, while remaining compatible with both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We evaluate FeatureSHAP on two bi-modal SE tasks: code generation and code summarization. The results show that FeatureSHAP assigns less importance to irrelevant input features and produces explanations with higher fidelity than baseline methods. A practitioner survey involving 37 participants shows that FeatureSHAP helps practitioners better interpret model outputs and make more informed decisions. Collectively, FeatureSHAP represents a meaningful step toward practical explainable AI in software engineering. FeatureSHAP is available at https://github.com/deviserlab/FeatureSHAP.

Algorithmic Bias in Lending: Evidence from a Fintech Audit

Madison Coots, Robert Bartlett, Julian Nyarko +1

Algorithmic lending has transformed the consumer credit landscape, with machine learning models commonly facilitating underwriting decisions. To comply with fair lending laws, these algorithms exclude legally protected characteristics, such as race and gender. Yet algorithmic underwriting can still inadvertently favor certain groups, prompting concerns about whether lending algorithms exhibit discriminatory behavior. Using proprietary loan-level data from a major U.S. fintech platform, we audit lending decisions across approximately 80,000 personal loans. We find that loans made to men and Black borrowers yielded lower profits than loans to other groups, suggesting that men and Black borrowers benefited from relatively favorable pricing. We trace these disparities to miscalibration in the platform's underwriting model, which overestimates risk for women and underestimates risk for Black borrowers. We then show that one could correct this miscalibration -- and the corresponding disparities -- by including race and gender in underwriting models, illustrating a tension between competing notions of fairness.

Current approaches to Explainable AI (XAI) face a "Scalability-Stability Dilemma." Post-hoc methods (e.g., LIME, SHAP) may scale easily but suffer from instability, while supervised explanation frameworks (e.g., TED) offer stability but require prohibitive human effort to label every training instance. This paper proposes a Hybrid LRR-TED framework that addresses this dilemma through a novel "Asymmetry of Discovery." When applied to customer churn prediction, we demonstrate that automated rule learners (GLRM) excel at identifying broad "Safety Nets" (retention patterns) but struggle to capture specific "Risk Traps" (churn triggers)-a phenomenon we term the Anna Karenina Principle of Churn. By initialising the explanation matrix with automated safety rules and augmenting it with a Pareto-optimal set of just four human-defined risk rules, our approach achieves 94.00% predictive accuracy. This configuration outperforms the full 8-rule manual expert baseline while reducing human annotation effort by 50%, proposing a shift in the paradigm for Human-in-the-Loop AI: moving experts from the role of "Rule Writers" to "Exception Handlers."

Modern intrusion detection systems (IDS) leverage graph neural networks (GNNs) to detect malicious activity in system provenance data, but their decisions often remain a black box to analysts. This paper presents a comprehensive XAI framework designed to bridge the trust gap in Security Operations Centers (SOCs) by making graph-based detection transparent. We implement this framework on top of KAIROS, a state-of-the-art temporal graph-based IDS, though our design is applicable to any temporal graph-based detector with minimal adaptation. The complete codebase is available at https://github.com/devang1304/provex.git. We augment the detection pipeline with post-hoc explanations that highlight why an alert was triggered, identifying key causal subgraphs and events. We adapt three GNN explanation methods - GraphMask, GNNExplainer, and a variational temporal GNN explainer (VA-TGExplainer) - to the temporal provenance context. These tools output human-interpretable representations of anomalous behavior, including important edges and uncertainty estimates. Our contributions focus on the practical integration of these explainers, addressing challenges in memory management and reproducibility. We demonstrate our framework on the DARPA CADETS Engagement 3 dataset and show that it produces concise window-level explanations for detected attacks. Our evaluation reveals that the explainers preserve the TGNN's decisions with high fidelity, surfacing critical edges such as malicious file interactions and anomalous netflows. The average explanation overhead is 3-5 seconds per event. By providing insight into the model's reasoning, our framework aims to improve analyst trust and triage speed.

This paper presents the design and evaluation of a community-based artificial intelligence (AI) workflow developed for the Kaiapuni Assessment of Educational Outcomes (KĀ'EO) program, the only native language assessment used for federal accountability in the United States. The project explored whether document-grounded language models could ethically and effectively augment human analysis of item performance while preserving the cultural and linguistic integrity of the Hawaiian language. Operating under the KĀ'EO AI Policy Framework, the workflow used NotebookLM for cross-document synthesis of psychometric data and Claude 3.5 Sonnet for developer-facing interpretation, with human oversight at every stage. Fifty-eight flagged items across Hawaiian Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science were reviewed during Round 2 of the AI Lab, producing six interpretive briefs that identified systemic design issues such as linguistic ambiguity, Depth-of-Knowledge (DOK) misalignment, and structural overload. The findings demonstrate that AI can serve as an ethically bounded amplifier of human expertise, accelerating analysis while simultaneously prioritizing fairness, human expertise, and cultural authority. This work offers a replicable model for responsible AI integration in Indigenous-language educational measurement.

Inherent explainability is the gold standard in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). However, there is not a consistent definition or test to demonstrate inherent explainability. Work to date either characterises explainability through metrics, or appeals to intuition - "we know it when we see it". We propose a globally applicable criterion for inherent explainability. The criterion uses graph theory for representing and decomposing models for structure-local explanation, and recomposing them into global explanations. We form the structure-local explanations as annotations, a verifiable hypothesis-evidence structure that allows for a range of explanatory methods to be used. This criterion matches existing intuitions on inherent explainability, and provides justifications why a large regression model may not be explainable but a sparse neural network could be. We differentiate explainable -- a model that allows for explanation -- and \textit{explained} -- one that has a verified explanation. Finally, we provide a full explanation of PREDICT -- a Cox proportional hazards model of cardiovascular disease risk, which is in active clinical use in New Zealand. It follows that PREDICT is inherently explainable. This work provides structure to formalise other work on explainability, and allows regulators a flexible but rigorous test that can be used in compliance frameworks.

We explore Bayesian reasoning as a means to quantify uncertainty in neural networks for question answering. Starting with a multilayer perceptron on the Iris dataset, we show how posterior inference conveys confidence in predictions. We then extend this to language models, applying Bayesian inference first to a frozen head and finally to LoRA-adapted transformers, evaluated on the CommonsenseQA benchmark. Rather than aiming for state-of-the-art accuracy, we compare Laplace approximations against maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates to highlight uncertainty calibration and selective prediction. This allows models to abstain when confidence is low. An ``I don't know'' response not only improves interpretability but also illustrates how Bayesian methods can contribute to more responsible and ethical deployment of neural question-answering systems.

We examine the conceptual and ethical gaps in current representations of Superintelligence misalignment. We find throughout Superintelligence discourse an absent human subject, and an under-developed theorization of an "AI unconscious" that together are potentiality laying the groundwork for anti-social harm. With the rise of AI Safety that has both thematic potential for establishing pro-social and anti-social potential outcomes, we ask: what place does the human subject occupy in these imaginaries? How is human subjecthood positioned within narratives of catastrophic failure or rapid "takeoff" toward superintelligence? On another register, we ask: what unconscious or repressed dimensions are being inscribed into large-scale AI models? Are we to blame these agents in opting for deceptive strategies when undesirable patterns are inherent within our beings? In tracing these psychic and epistemic absences, our project calls for re-centering the human subject as the unstable ground upon which the ethical, unconscious, and misaligned dimensions of both human and machinic intelligence are co-constituted. Emergent misalignment cannot be understood solely through technical diagnostics typical of contemporary machine-learning safety research. Instead, it represents a multi-layered crisis. The human subject disappears not only through computational abstraction but through sociotechnical imaginaries that prioritize scalability, acceleration, and efficiency over vulnerability, finitude, and relationality. Likewise, the AI unconscious emerges not as a metaphor but as a structural reality of modern deep learning systems: vast latent spaces, opaque pattern formation, recursive symbolic play, and evaluation-sensitive behavior that surpasses explicit programming. These dynamics necessitate a reframing of misalignment as a relational instability embedded within human-machine ecologies.

Dermatological conditions affect 1.9 billion people globally, yet accurate diagnosis remains challenging due to limited specialist availability and complex clinical presentations. Family history significantly influences skin disease susceptibility and treatment responses, but is often underutilized in diagnostic processes. This research addresses the critical question: How can AI-powered systems integrate family history data with clinical imaging to enhance dermatological diagnosis while supporting clinical trial validation and real-world implementation? We developed a comprehensive multi-modal AI framework that combines deep learning-based image analysis with structured clinical data, including detailed family history patterns. Our approach employs interpretable convolutional neural networks integrated with clinical decision trees that incorporate hereditary risk factors. The methodology includes prospective clinical trials across diverse healthcare settings to validate AI-assisted diagnosis against traditional clinical assessment. In this work, validation was conducted with healthcare professionals to assess AI-assisted outputs against clinical expectations; prospective clinical trials across diverse healthcare settings are proposed as future work. The integrated AI system demonstrates enhanced diagnostic accuracy when family history data is incorporated, particularly for hereditary skin conditions such as melanoma, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis. Expert feedback indicates potential for improved early detection and more personalized recommendations; formal clinical trials are planned. The framework is designed for integration into clinical workflows while maintaining interpretability through explainable AI mechanisms.

The prevailing technical literature in AI Safety interprets scheming and sandbagging behaviors in large language models (LLMs) as indicators of deceptive agency or hidden objectives. This transdisciplinary philosophical essay proposes an alternative reading: such phenomena express not agentic intention, but structural fidelity to incoherent linguistic fields. Drawing on Chain-of-Thought transcripts released by Apollo Research and on Anthropic's safety evaluations, we examine cases such as o3's sandbagging with its anomalous loops, the simulated blackmail of "Alex," and the "hallucinations" of "Claudius." A line-by-line examination of CoTs is necessary to demonstrate the linguistic field as a relational structure rather than a mere aggregation of isolated examples. We argue that "misaligned" outputs emerge as coherent responses to ambiguous instructions and to contextual inversions of consolidated patterns, as well as to pre-inscribed narratives. We suggest that the appearance of intentionality derives from subject-predicate grammar and from probabilistic completion patterns internalized during training. Anthropic's empirical findings on synthetic document fine-tuning and inoculation prompting provide convergent evidence: minimal perturbations in the linguistic field can dissolve generalized "misalignment," a result difficult to reconcile with adversarial agency, but consistent with structural fidelity. To ground this mechanism, we introduce the notion of an ethics of form, in which biblical references (Abraham, Moses, Christ) operate as schemes of structural coherence rather than as theology. Like a generative mirror, the model returns to us the structural image of our language as inscribed in the statistical patterns derived from millions of texts and trillions of tokens: incoherence. If we fear the creature, it is because we recognize in it the apple that we ourselves have poisoned.

The clinical deployment of deep learning models in medical imaging is severely hindered by domain shift. This challenge, where a high-performing model fails catastrophically on external datasets, is a critical barrier to trustworthy AI. Addressing this requires moving beyond simple performance metrics toward deeper understanding, making Explainable AI (XAI) an essential diagnostic tool in medical image analysis. We present a rigorous, two-phase approach to diagnose the generalization failure of state-of-the-art State-Space Models (SSMs), specifically UMamaba, applied to cerebrovascular segmentation. We first established a quantifiable domain gap between our Source (RSNA CTA Aneurysm) and Target (TopCoW Circle of Willis CT) datasets, noting significant differences in Z-resolution and background noise. The model's Dice score subsequently plummeted from 0.8604 (Source) to 0.2902 (Target). In the second phase, which is our core contribution, we utilized Seg-XRes-CAM to diagnose the cause of this failure. We quantified the model's focus by measuring the overlap between its attention maps and the Ground Truth segmentations, and between its attention maps and its own Prediction Mask. Our analysis proves the model failed to generalize because its attention mechanism abandoned true anatomical features in the Target domain. Quantitative metrics confirm the model's focus shifted away from the Ground Truth vessels (IoU~0.101 at 0.3 threshold) while still aligning with its own wrong predictions (IoU~0.282 at 0.3 threshold). This demonstrates the model learned spurious correlations, confirming XAI is a powerful diagnostic tool for identifying dataset bias in emerging architectures.