Research Papers

Feature-attribution methods (e.g., SHAP, LIME) explain individual predictions but often miss higher-order structure: sets of features that act in concert. We propose Modules of Influence (MoI), a framework that (i) constructs a model explanation graph from per-instance attributions, (ii) applies community detection to find feature modules that jointly affect predictions, and (iii) quantifies how these modules relate to bias, redundancy, and causality patterns. Across synthetic and real datasets, MoI uncovers correlated feature groups, improves model debugging via module-level ablations, and localizes bias exposure to specific modules. We release stability and synergy metrics, a reference implementation, and evaluation protocols to benchmark module discovery in XAI.

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive and deadliest skin cancers, leading to mortality if not detected and treated in the early stages. Artificial intelligence techniques have recently been developed to help dermatologists in the early detection of melanoma, and systems based on deep learning (DL) have been able to detect these lesions with high accuracy. However, the entire community must overcome the explainability limit to get the maximum benefit from DL for diagnostics in the healthcare domain. Because of the black box operation's shortcomings in DL models' decisions, there is a lack of reliability and trust in the outcomes. However, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) can solve this problem by interpreting the predictions of AI systems. This paper proposes a machine learning model using ensemble learning of three state-of-the-art deep transfer Learning networks, along with an approach to ensure the reliability of the predictions by utilizing XAI techniques to explain the basis of the predictions.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated transformative potential in scientific research, yet their deployment in high-stakes contexts raises significant trustworthiness concerns. Here, we introduce SciTrust 2.0, a comprehensive framework for evaluating LLM trustworthiness in scientific applications across four dimensions: truthfulness, adversarial robustness, scientific safety, and scientific ethics. Our framework incorporates novel, open-ended truthfulness benchmarks developed through a verified reflection-tuning pipeline and expert validation, alongside a novel ethics benchmark for scientific research contexts covering eight subcategories including dual-use research and bias. We evaluated seven prominent LLMs, including four science-specialized models and three general-purpose industry models, using multiple evaluation metrics including accuracy, semantic similarity measures, and LLM-based scoring. General-purpose industry models overall outperformed science-specialized models across each trustworthiness dimension, with GPT-o4-mini demonstrating superior performance in truthfulness assessments and adversarial robustness. Science-specialized models showed significant deficiencies in logical and ethical reasoning capabilities, along with concerning vulnerabilities in safety evaluations, particularly in high-risk domains such as biosecurity and chemical weapons. By open-sourcing our framework, we provide a foundation for developing more trustworthy AI systems and advancing research on model safety and ethics in scientific contexts.

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including AI in Science (AIS), should be done following the principles of responsible AI. Progress in responsible AI is often quantified through evaluation metrics, yet there has been less work on assessing the robustness and reliability of the metrics themselves. We reflect on prior work that examines the robustness of fairness metrics for recommender systems as a type of AI application and summarise their key takeaways into a set of non-exhaustive guidelines for developing reliable metrics of responsible AI. Our guidelines apply to a broad spectrum of AI applications, including AIS.

Evaluating how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle complex, specialized knowledge remains a critical challenge. We address this through the lens of climate change by introducing CLINB, a benchmark that assesses models on open-ended, grounded, multimodal question answering tasks with clear requirements for knowledge quality and evidential support. CLINB relies on a dataset of real users' questions and evaluation rubrics curated by leading climate scientists. We implement and validate a model-based evaluation process and evaluate several frontier models. Our findings reveal a critical dichotomy. Frontier models demonstrate remarkable knowledge synthesis capabilities, often exhibiting PhD-level understanding and presentation quality. They outperform "hybrid" answers curated by domain experts assisted by weaker models. However, this performance is countered by failures in grounding. The quality of evidence varies, with substantial hallucination rates for references and images. We argue that bridging this gap between knowledge synthesis and verifiable attribution is essential for the deployment of AI in scientific workflows and that reliable, interpretable benchmarks like CLINB are needed to progress towards building trustworthy AI systems.

For doctors to truly trust artificial intelligence, it can't be a black box. They need to understand its reasoning, almost as if they were consulting a colleague. We created HistoLens1 to be that transparent, collaborative partner. It allows a pathologist to simply ask a question in plain English about a tissue slide--just as they would ask a trainee. Our system intelligently translates this question into a precise query for its AI engine, which then provides a clear, structured report. But it doesn't stop there. If a doctor ever asks, "Why?", HistoLens can instantly provide a 'visual proof' for any finding--a heatmap that points to the exact cells and regions the AI used for its analysis. We've also ensured the AI focuses only on the patient's tissue, just like a trained pathologist would, by teaching it to ignore distracting background noise. The result is a workflow where the pathologist remains the expert in charge, using a trustworthy AI assistant to verify their insights and make faster, more confident diagnoses.

Current quantum machine learning approaches often face challenges balancing predictive accuracy, robustness, and interpretability. To address this, we propose a novel quantum adversarial framework that integrates a hybrid quantum neural network (QNN) with classical deep learning layers, guided by an evaluator model with LIME-based interpretability, and extended through quantum GAN and self-supervised variants. In the proposed model, an adversarial evaluator concurrently guides the QNN by computing feedback loss, thereby optimizing both prediction accuracy and model explainability. Empirical evaluations show that the Vanilla model achieves RMSE = 0.27, MSE = 0.071, MAE = 0.21, and R^2 = 0.59, delivering the most consistent performance across regression metrics compared to adversarial counterparts. These results demonstrate the potential of combining quantum-inspired methods with classical architectures to develop lightweight, high-performance, and interpretable predictive models, advancing the applicability of QML beyond current limitations.

Do Chatbots Walk the Talk of Responsible AI?

Susan Ariel Aaronson, Michael Moreno

This study examines whether leading AI chatbot companies implement the responsible AI principles they publicly advocate. The authors used a mixed-methods approach analyzing four major chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok) across company websites, technical documentation, and direct chatbot evaluations. We found significant gaps between corporate rhetoric and practice.

ProfileXAI is a model- and domain-agnostic framework that couples post-hoc explainers (SHAP, LIME, Anchor) with retrieval - augmented LLMs to produce explanations for different types of users. The system indexes a multimodal knowledge base, selects an explainer per instance via quantitative criteria, and generates grounded narratives with chat-enabled prompting. On Heart Disease and Thyroid Cancer datasets, we evaluate fidelity, robustness, parsimony, token use, and perceived quality. No explainer dominates: LIME achieves the best fidelity-robustness trade-off (Infidelity $\le 0.30$, $L<0.7$ on Heart Disease); Anchor yields the sparsest, low-token rules; SHAP attains the highest satisfaction ($\bar{x}=4.1$). Profile conditioning stabilizes tokens ($σ\le 13\%$) and maintains positive ratings across profiles ($\bar{x}\ge 3.7$, with domain experts at $3.77$), enabling efficient and trustworthy explanations.

Recent advances in finance-specific language models such as FinBERT have enabled the quantification of public sentiment into index-based measures, yet compressing diverse linguistic signals into single metrics overlooks contextual nuances and limits interpretability. To address this limitation, explainable AI techniques, particularly SHAP (SHapley Additive Explanations), have been employed to identify influential features. However, SHAP's computational cost grows exponentially with input features, making it impractical for large-scale text-based financial data. This study introduces a GRU-based forecasting framework enhanced with GroupSHAP, which quantifies contributions of semantically related keyword groups rather than individual tokens, substantially reducing computational burden while preserving interpretability. We employed FinBERT to embed news articles from 2015 to 2024, clustered them into coherent semantic groups, and applied GroupSHAP to measure each group's contribution to stock price movements. The resulting group-level SHAP variables across multiple topics were used as input features for the prediction model. Empirical results from one-day-ahead forecasting of the S&P 500 index throughout 2024 demonstrate that our approach achieves a 32.2% reduction in MAE and a 40.5% reduction in RMSE compared with benchmark models without the GroupSHAP mechanism. This research presents the first application of GroupSHAP in news-driven financial forecasting, showing that grouped sentiment representations simultaneously enhance interpretability and predictive performance.

Developing benchmark datasets for low-resource languages poses significant challenges, primarily due to the limited availability of native linguistic experts and the substantial time and cost involved in annotation. Given these challenges, Maithili is still underrepresented in natural language processing research. It is an Indo-Aryan language spoken by more than 13 million people in the Purvanchal region of India, valued for its rich linguistic structure and cultural significance. While sentiment analysis has achieved remarkable progress in high-resource languages, resources for low-resource languages, such as Maithili, remain scarce, often restricted to coarse-grained annotations and lacking interpretability mechanisms. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel dataset comprising 3,221 Maithili sentences annotated for sentiment polarity and accompanied by natural language justifications. Moreover, the dataset is carefully curated and validated by linguistic experts to ensure both label reliability and contextual fidelity. Notably, the justifications are written in Maithili, thereby promoting culturally grounded interpretation and enhancing the explainability of sentiment models. Furthermore, extensive experiments using both classical machine learning and state-of-the-art transformer architectures demonstrate the dataset's effectiveness for interpretable sentiment analysis. Ultimately, this work establishes the first benchmark for explainable affective computing in Maithili, thus contributing a valuable resource to the broader advancement of multilingual NLP and explainable AI.

Assessing the Real-World Utility of Explainable AI for Arousal Diagnostics: An Application-Grounded User Study

Stefan Kraft, Andreas Theissler, Vera Wienhausen-Wilke +2

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly match or surpass human experts in biomedical signal interpretation. However, their effective integration into clinical practice requires more than high predictive accuracy. Clinicians must discern \textit{when} and \textit{why} to trust algorithmic recommendations. This work presents an application-grounded user study with eight professional sleep medicine practitioners, who score nocturnal arousal events in polysomnographic data under three conditions: (i) manual scoring, (ii) black-box (BB) AI assistance, and (iii) transparent white-box (WB) AI assistance. Assistance is provided either from the \textit{start} of scoring or as a post-hoc quality-control (\textit{QC}) review. We systematically evaluate how the type and timing of assistance influence event-level and clinically most relevant count-based performance, time requirements, and user experience. When evaluated against the clinical standard used to train the AI, both AI and human-AI teams significantly outperform unaided experts, with collaboration also reducing inter-rater variability. Notably, transparent AI assistance applied as a targeted QC step yields median event-level performance improvements of approximately 30\% over black-box assistance, and QC timing further enhances count-based outcomes. While WB and QC approaches increase the time required for scoring, start-time assistance is faster and preferred by most participants. Participants overwhelmingly favor transparency, with seven out of eight expressing willingness to adopt the system with minor or no modifications. In summary, strategically timed transparent AI assistance effectively balances accuracy and clinical efficiency, providing a promising pathway toward trustworthy AI integration and user acceptance in clinical workflows.