Research Papers

An Experimental Study on Generating Plausible Textual Explanations for Video Summarization

Thomas Eleftheriadis, Evlampios Apostolidis, Vasileios Mezaris

In this paper, we present our experimental study on generating plausible textual explanations for the outcomes of video summarization. For the needs of this study, we extend an existing framework for multigranular explanation of video summarization by integrating a SOTA Large Multimodal Model (LLaVA-OneVision) and prompting it to produce natural language descriptions of the obtained visual explanations. Following, we focus on one of the most desired characteristics for explainable AI, the plausibility of the obtained explanations that relates with their alignment with the humans' reasoning and expectations. Using the extended framework, we propose an approach for evaluating the plausibility of visual explanations by quantifying the semantic overlap between their textual descriptions and the textual descriptions of the corresponding video summaries, with the help of two methods for creating sentence embeddings (SBERT, SimCSE). Based on the extended framework and the proposed plausibility evaluation approach, we conduct an experimental study using a SOTA method (CA-SUM) and two datasets (SumMe, TVSum) for video summarization, to examine whether the more faithful explanations are also the more plausible ones, and identify the most appropriate approach for generating plausible textual explanations for video summarization.

Due to the susceptibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to data perturbations and adversarial examples, it is crucial to perform a thorough robustness evaluation before any Machine Learning (ML) model is deployed. However, examining a model's decision boundaries and identifying potential vulnerabilities typically requires access to the training and testing datasets, which may pose risks to data privacy and confidentiality. To improve transparency in organizations that handle confidential data or manage critical infrastructure, it is essential to allow external verification and validation of AI without the disclosure of private datasets. This paper presents Systematic Pattern Analysis (SPATA), a deterministic method that converts any tabular dataset to a domain-independent representation of its statistical patterns, to provide more detailed and transparent data cards. SPATA computes the projection of each data instance into a discrete space where they can be analyzed and compared, without risking data leakage. These projected datasets can be reliably used for the evaluation of how different features affect ML model robustness and for the generation of interpretable explanations of their behavior, contributing to more trustworthy AI.

Artificial Intelligence has rapidly become a cornerstone technology, significantly influencing Europe's societal and economic landscapes. However, the proliferation of AI also raises critical ethical, legal, and regulatory challenges. The CERTAIN (Certification for Ethical and Regulatory Transparency in Artificial Intelligence) project addresses these issues by developing a comprehensive framework that integrates regulatory compliance, ethical standards, and transparency into AI systems. In this position paper, we outline the methodological steps for building the core components of this framework. Specifically, we present: (i) semantic Machine Learning Operations (MLOps) for structured AI lifecycle management, (ii) ontology-driven data lineage tracking to ensure traceability and accountability, and (iii) regulatory operations (RegOps) workflows to operationalize compliance requirements. By implementing and validating its solutions across diverse pilots, CERTAIN aims to advance regulatory compliance and to promote responsible AI innovation aligned with European standards.

The proliferation of transformer-based language models has revolutionized NLP domain while simultaneously introduced significant challenges regarding model transparency and trustworthiness. The complexity of achieving explainable systems in this domain is evidenced by the extensive array of explanation methods and evaluation metrics developed by researchers. To address the challenge of selecting optimal explainability approaches, we present \textbf{\texttt{o-mega}}, a hyperparameter optimization tool designed to automatically identify the most effective explainable AI methods and their configurations within the semantic matching domain. We evaluate o-mega on a post-claim matching pipeline using a curated dataset of social media posts paired with refuting claims. Our tool systematically explores different explainable methods and their hyperparameters, demonstrating improved transparency in automated fact-checking systems. As a result, such automated optimization of explanation methods can significantly enhance the interpretability of claim-matching models in critical applications such as misinformation detection, contributing to more trustworthy and transparent AI systems.

ICL guides are known to improve task-specific performance, but their impact on cross-domain cognitive abilities remains unexplored. This study examines how ICL guides affect reasoning across different knowledge domains using six variants of the GPT-OSS:20b model: one baseline model and five ICL configurations (simple, chain-of-thought, random, appended text, and symbolic language). The models were subjected to 840 tests spanning general knowledge questions, logic riddles, and a mathematical olympiad problem. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) revealed significant behavioral modifications (p less than 0.001) across ICL variants, demonstrating a phenomenon termed "optimized fragility." ICL models achieved 91%-99% accuracy on general knowledge tasks while showing degraded performance on complex reasoning problems, with accuracy dropping to 10-43% on riddles compared to 43% for the baseline model. Notably, no significant differences emerged on the olympiad problem (p=0.2173), suggesting that complex mathematical reasoning remains unaffected by ICL optimization. These findings indicate that ICL guides create systematic trade-offs between efficiency and reasoning flexibility, with important implications for LLM deployment and AI safety.

humancompatible.detect: a Python Toolkit for Detecting Bias in AI Models

German M. Matilla, Jiri Nemecek, Illia Kryvoviaz +1

There is a strong recent emphasis on trustworthy AI. In particular, international regulations, such as the AI Act, demand that AI practitioners measure data quality on the input and estimate bias on the output of high-risk AI systems. However, there are many challenges involved, including scalability (MMD) and computability (Wasserstein-1) issues of traditional methods for estimating distances on measure spaces. Here, we present humancompatible.detect, a toolkit for bias detection that addresses these challenges. It incorporates two newly developed methods to detect and evaluate bias: maximum subgroup discrepancy (MSD) and subsampled $\ell_\infty$ distances. It has an easy-to-use API documented with multiple examples. humancompatible.detect is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.

Accurate, fair, and explainable allocation of candidates to roles represents a fundamental challenge across multiple domains including corporate hiring, academic admissions, fellowship awards, and volunteer placement systems. Current state-of-the-art approaches suffer from semantic inflexibility, persistent demographic bias, opacity in decision-making processes, and poor scalability under dynamic policy constraints. We present GESA (Graph-Enhanced Semantic Allocation), a comprehensive framework that addresses these limitations through the integration of domain-adaptive transformer embeddings, heterogeneous self-supervised graph neural networks, adversarial debiasing mechanisms, multi-objective genetic optimization, and explainable AI components. Our experimental evaluation on large-scale international benchmarks comprising 20,000 candidate profiles and 3,000 role specifications demonstrates superior performance with 94.5% top-3 allocation accuracy, 37% improvement in diversity representation, 0.98 fairness score across demographic categories, and sub-second end-to-end latency. Additionally, GESA incorporates hybrid recommendation capabilities and glass-box explainability, making it suitable for deployment across diverse international contexts in industry, academia, and non-profit sectors.

The way residents perceive safety plays an important role in how they use public spaces. Studies have combined large-scale street view images and advanced computer vision techniques to measure the perception of safety of urban environments. Despite their success, such studies have often overlooked the specific environmental visual factors that draw human attention and trigger people's feelings of safety perceptions. In this study, we introduce a computational framework that enriches the existing body of literature on place perception by using eye-tracking systems with street view images and deep learning approaches. Eye-tracking systems quantify not only what users are looking at but also how long they engage with specific environmental elements. This allows us to explore the nuance of which visual environmental factors influence human safety perceptions. We conducted our research in Helsingborg, Sweden, where we recruited volunteers outfitted with eye-tracking systems. They were asked to indicate which of the two street view images appeared safer. By examining participants' focus on specific features using Mean Object Ratio in Highlighted Regions (MoRH) and Mean Object Hue (MoH), we identified key visual elements that attract human attention when perceiving safe environments. For instance, certain urban infrastructure and public space features draw more human attention while the sky is less relevant in influencing safety perceptions. These insights offer a more human-centered understanding of which urban features influence human safety perceptions. Furthermore, we compared the real human attention from eye-tracking systems with attention maps obtained from eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) results. Several XAI models were tested, and we observed that XGradCAM and EigenCAM most closely align with human safety perceptual patterns.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods help identify which image regions influence a model's prediction, but often face a trade-off between detail and interpretability. Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) offers a model-aware alternative. However, LRP implementations commonly rely on heuristic rule sets that are not optimized for clarity or alignment with model behavior. We introduce EVO-LRP, a method that applies Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) to tune LRP hyperparameters based on quantitative interpretability metrics, such as faithfulness or sparseness. EVO-LRP outperforms traditional XAI approaches in both interpretability metric performance and visual coherence, with strong sensitivity to class-specific features. These findings demonstrate that attribution quality can be systematically improved through principled, task-specific optimization.

Transparent Visual Reasoning via Object-Centric Agent Collaboration

Benjamin Teoh, Ben Glocker, Francesca Toni +1

A central challenge in explainable AI, particularly in the visual domain, is producing explanations grounded in human-understandable concepts. To tackle this, we introduce OCEAN (Object-Centric Explananda via Agent Negotiation), a novel, inherently interpretable framework built on object-centric representations and a transparent multi-agent reasoning process. The game-theoretic reasoning process drives agents to agree on coherent and discriminative evidence, resulting in a faithful and interpretable decision-making process. We train OCEAN end-to-end and benchmark it against standard visual classifiers and popular posthoc explanation tools like GradCAM and LIME across two diagnostic multi-object datasets. Our results demonstrate competitive performance with respect to state-of-the-art black-box models with a faithful reasoning process, which was reflected by our user study, where participants consistently rated OCEAN's explanations as more intuitive and trustworthy.

This paper grounds ethics in evolutionary biology, viewing moral norms as adaptive mechanisms that render cooperation fitness-viable under selection pressure. Current alignment approaches add ethics post hoc, treating it as an external constraint rather than embedding it as an evolutionary strategy for cooperation. The central question is whether normative architectures can be embedded directly into AI systems to sustain human--AI cooperation (symbiosis) as capabilities scale. To address this, I propose a governance--embedding--representation pipeline linking moral representation learning to system-level design and institutional governance, treating alignment as a multi-level problem spanning cognition, optimization, and oversight. I formalize moral norm representation through the moral problem space, a learnable subspace in neural representations where cooperative norms can be encoded and causally manipulated. Using sparse autoencoders, activation steering, and causal interventions, I outline a research program for engineering moral representations and embedding them into the full semantic space -- treating competing theories of morality as empirical hypotheses about representation geometry rather than philosophical positions. Governance principles leverage these learned moral representations to regulate how cooperative behaviors evolve within the AI ecosystem. Through replicator dynamics and multi-agent game theory, I model how internal representational features can shape population-level incentives by motivating the design of sanctions and subsidies structured to yield decentralized normative institutions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems introduce unprecedented privacy challenges as they process increasingly sensitive data. Traditional privacy frameworks prove inadequate for AI technologies due to unique characteristics such as autonomous learning and black-box decision-making. This paper presents a taxonomy classifying AI privacy risks, synthesised from 45 studies identified through systematic review. We identify 19 key risks grouped under four categories: Dataset-Level, Model-Level, Infrastructure-Level, and Insider Threat Risks. Findings reveal a balanced distribution across these dimensions, with human error (9.45%) emerging as the most significant factor. This taxonomy challenges conventional security approaches that typically prioritise technical controls over human factors, highlighting gaps in holistic understanding. By bridging technical and behavioural dimensions of AI privacy, this paper contributes to advancing trustworthy AI development and provides a foundation for future research.