Research Papers

How do ethical arguments affect AI adoption in business? We randomly expose business decision-makers to arguments used in AI fairness activism. Arguments emphasizing the inescapability of algorithmic bias lead managers to abandon AI for manual review by humans and report greater expectations about lawsuits and negative PR. These effects persist even when AI lowers gender and racial disparities and when engineering investments to address AI fairness are feasible. Emphasis on status quo comparisons yields opposite effects. We also measure the effects of "scientific veneer" in AI ethics arguments. Scientific veneer changes managerial behavior but does not asymmetrically benefit favorable (versus critical) AI activism.

With the increasing sophistication of machine learning models, there are growing trends of developing model explanation techniques that focus on only one instance (local explanation) to ensure faithfulness to the original model. While these techniques provide accurate model interpretability on various data primitive (e.g., tabular, image, or text), a holistic Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) experience also requires a global explanation of the model and dataset to enable sensemaking in different granularity. Thus, there is a vast potential in synergizing the model explanation and visual analytics approaches. In this paper, we present MELODY, an interactive algorithm to construct an optimal global overview of the model and data behavior by summarizing the local explanations using information theory. The result (i.e., an explanation summary) does not require additional learning models, restrictions of data primitives, or the knowledge of machine learning from the users. We also design MELODY UI, an interactive visual analytics system to demonstrate how the explanation summary connects the dots in various XAI tasks from a global overview to local inspections. We present three usage scenarios regarding tabular, image, and text classifications to illustrate how to generalize model interpretability of different data. Our experiments show that our approaches: (1) provides a better explanation summary compared to a straightforward information-theoretic summarization and (2) achieves a significant speedup in the end-to-end data modeling pipeline.

Agentic AI marks a major shift in how autonomous systems reason, plan, and execute multi-step tasks. Unlike traditional single model prompting, agentic workflows integrate multiple specialized agents with different Large Language Models(LLMs), tool-augmented capabilities, orchestration logic, and external system interactions to form dynamic pipelines capable of autonomous decision-making and action. As adoption accelerates across industry and research, organizations face a central challenge: how to design, engineer, and operate production-grade agentic AI workflows that are reliable, observable, maintainable, and aligned with safety and governance requirements. This paper provides a practical, end-to-end guide for designing, developing, and deploying production-quality agentic AI systems. We introduce a structured engineering lifecycle encompassing workflow decomposition, multi-agent design patterns, Model Context Protocol(MCP), and tool integration, deterministic orchestration, Responsible-AI considerations, and environment-aware deployment strategies. We then present nine core best practices for engineering production-grade agentic AI workflows, including tool-first design over MCP, pure-function invocation, single-tool and single-responsibility agents, externalized prompt management, Responsible-AI-aligned model-consortium design, clean separation between workflow logic and MCP servers, containerized deployment for scalable operations, and adherence to the Keep it Simple, Stupid (KISS) principle to maintain simplicity and robustness. To demonstrate these principles in practice, we present a comprehensive case study: a multimodal news-analysis and media-generation workflow. By combining architectural guidance, operational patterns, and practical implementation insights, this paper offers a foundational reference to build robust, extensible, and production-ready agentic AI workflows.

The automation of chemical research through self-driving laboratories (SDLs) promises to accelerate scientific discovery, yet the reliability and granular performance of the underlying AI agents remain critical, under-examined challenges. In this work, we introduce AutoLabs, a self-correcting, multi-agent architecture designed to autonomously translate natural-language instructions into executable protocols for a high-throughput liquid handler. The system engages users in dialogue, decomposes experimental goals into discrete tasks for specialized agents, performs tool-assisted stoichiometric calculations, and iteratively self-corrects its output before generating a hardware-ready file. We present a comprehensive evaluation framework featuring five benchmark experiments of increasing complexity, from simple sample preparation to multi-plate timed syntheses. Through a systematic ablation study of 20 agent configurations, we assess the impact of reasoning capacity, architectural design (single- vs. multi-agent), tool use, and self-correction mechanisms. Our results demonstrate that agent reasoning capacity is the most critical factor for success, reducing quantitative errors in chemical amounts (nRMSE) by over 85% in complex tasks. When combined with a multi-agent architecture and iterative self-correction, AutoLabs achieves near-expert procedural accuracy (F1-score > 0.89) on challenging multi-step syntheses. These findings establish a clear blueprint for developing robust and trustworthy AI partners for autonomous laboratories, highlighting the synergistic effects of modular design, advanced reasoning, and self-correction to ensure both performance and reliability in high-stakes scientific applications. Code: https://github.com/pnnl/autolabs

Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance is the practice of establishing frameworks, policies, and procedures to ensure the responsible, ethical, and safe development and deployment of AI systems. Although AI governance is a core pillar of Responsible AI, current literature still lacks synthesis across such governance frameworks and practices. Objective: To identify which frameworks, principles, mechanisms, and stakeholder roles are emphasized in secondary literature on AI governance. Method: We conducted a rapid tertiary review of nine peer-reviewed secondary studies from IEEE and ACM (20202024), using structured inclusion criteria and thematic semantic synthesis. Results: The most cited frameworks include the EU AI Act and NIST RMF; transparency and accountability are the most common principles. Few reviews detail actionable governance mechanisms or stakeholder strategies. Conclusion: The review consolidates key directions in AI governance and highlights gaps in empirical validation and inclusivity. Findings inform both academic inquiry and practical adoption in organizations.

This paper introduces LoBOX (Lack of Belief: Opacity \& eXplainability) governance ethic structured framework for managing artificial intelligence (AI) opacity when full transparency is infeasible. Rather than treating opacity as a design flaw, LoBOX defines it as a condition that can be ethically governed through role-calibrated explanation and institutional accountability. The framework comprises a three-stage pathway: reduce accidental opacity, bound irreducible opacity, and delegate trust through structured oversight. Integrating the RED/BLUE XAI model for stakeholder-sensitive explanation and aligned with emerging legal instruments such as the EU AI Act, LoBOX offers a scalable and context-aware alternative to transparency-centric approaches. Reframe trust not as a function of complete system explainability, but as an outcome of institutional credibility, structured justification, and stakeholder-responsive accountability. A governance loop cycles back to ensure that LoBOX remains responsive to evolving technological contexts and stakeholder expectations, to ensure the complete opacity governance. We move from transparency ideals to ethical governance, emphasizing that trustworthiness in AI must be institutionally grounded and contextually justified. We also discuss how cultural or institutional trust varies in different contexts. This theoretical framework positions opacity not as a flaw but as a feature that must be actively governed to ensure responsible AI systems.

Multi-agent autonomous systems (MAS) are better at addressing challenges that spans across multiple domains than singular autonomous agents. This holds true within the field of software engineering (SE) as well. The state-of-the-art research on MAS within SE focuses on integrating LLMs at the core of autonomous agents to create LLM-based multi-agent autonomous (LMA) systems. However, the introduction of LMA systems into SE brings a plethora of challenges. One of the major challenges is the strategic allocation of tasks between humans and the LMA system in a trustworthy manner. To address this challenge, a RACI-based framework is proposed in this work in progress article, along with implementation guidelines and an example implementation of the framework. The proposed framework can facilitate efficient collaboration, ensure accountability, and mitigate potential risks associated with LLM-driven automation while aligning with the Trustworthy AI guidelines. The future steps for this work delineating the planned empirical validation method are also presented.

AI Safety Assurance for Automated Vehicles: A Survey on Research, Standardization, Regulation

Lars Ullrich, Michael Buchholz, Klaus Dietmayer +1

Assuring safety of artificial intelligence (AI) applied to safety-critical systems is of paramount importance. Especially since research in the field of automated driving shows that AI is able to outperform classical approaches, to handle higher complexities, and to reach new levels of autonomy. At the same time, the safety assurance required for the use of AI in such safety-critical systems is still not in place. Due to the dynamic and far-reaching nature of the technology, research on safeguarding AI is being conducted in parallel to AI standardization and regulation. The parallel progress necessitates simultaneous consideration in order to carry out targeted research and development of AI systems in the context of automated driving. Therefore, in contrast to existing surveys that focus primarily on research aspects, this paper considers research, standardization and regulation in a concise way. Accordingly, the survey takes into account the interdependencies arising from the triplet of research, standardization and regulation in a forward-looking perspective and anticipates and discusses open questions and possible future directions. In this way, the survey ultimately serves to provide researchers and safety experts with a compact, holistic perspective that discusses the current status, emerging trends, and possible future developments.

The way we work is no longer hybrid -- it is blended with AI co-workers, automated decisions, and virtual presence reshaping human roles, agency, and expertise. We now work through AI, with our outputs shaped by invisible algorithms. AI's infiltration into knowledge, creative, and service work is not just about automation, but concerns redistribution of agency, creativity, and control. How do we deal with physical and distributed AI-mediated workspaces? What happens when algorithms co-author reports, and draft our creative work? In this provocation, we argue that hybrid work is obsolete. Blended work is the future, not just in physical and virtual spaces but in how human effort and AI output become inseparable. We argue this shift demands urgent attention to AI-mediated work practices, work-life boundaries, physical-digital interactions, and AI transparency and accountability. The question is not whether we accept it, but whether we actively shape it before it shapes us.

Explingo: Explaining AI Predictions using Large Language Models

Alexandra Zytek, Sara Pido, Sarah Alnegheimish +2

Explanations of machine learning (ML) model predictions generated by Explainable AI (XAI) techniques such as SHAP are essential for people using ML outputs for decision-making. We explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform these explanations into human-readable, narrative formats that align with natural communication. We address two key research questions: (1) Can LLMs reliably transform traditional explanations into high-quality narratives? and (2) How can we effectively evaluate the quality of narrative explanations? To answer these questions, we introduce Explingo, which consists of two LLM-based subsystems, a Narrator and Grader. The Narrator takes in ML explanations and transforms them into natural-language descriptions. The Grader scores these narratives on a set of metrics including accuracy, completeness, fluency, and conciseness. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs can generate high-quality narratives that achieve high scores across all metrics, particularly when guided by a small number of human-labeled and bootstrapped examples. We also identified areas that remain challenging, in particular for effectively scoring narratives in complex domains. The findings from this work have been integrated into an open-source tool that makes narrative explanations available for further applications.

As an AI Language Model, "Yes I Would Recommend Calling the Police": Norm Inconsistency in LLM Decision-Making

Shomik Jain, D Calacci, Ashia Wilson

We investigate the phenomenon of norm inconsistency: where LLMs apply different norms in similar situations. Specifically, we focus on the high-risk application of deciding whether to call the police in Amazon Ring home surveillance videos. We evaluate the decisions of three state-of-the-art LLMs -- GPT-4, Gemini 1.0, and Claude 3 Sonnet -- in relation to the activities portrayed in the videos, the subjects' skin-tone and gender, and the characteristics of the neighborhoods where the videos were recorded. Our analysis reveals significant norm inconsistencies: (1) a discordance between the recommendation to call the police and the actual presence of criminal activity, and (2) biases influenced by the racial demographics of the neighborhoods. These results highlight the arbitrariness of model decisions in the surveillance context and the limitations of current bias detection and mitigation strategies in normative decision-making.

As Transformers have become state-of-the-art models for natural language processing (NLP) tasks, the need to understand and explain their predictions is increasingly apparent. Especially in unsupervised applications, such as information retrieval tasks, similarity models built on top of foundation model representations have been widely applied. However, their inner prediction mechanisms have mostly remained opaque. Recent advances in explainable AI have made it possible to mitigate these limitations by leveraging improved explanations for Transformers through layer-wise relevance propagation (LRP). Using BiLRP, an extension developed for computing second-order explanations in bilinear similarity models, we investigate which feature interactions drive similarity in NLP models. We validate the resulting explanations and demonstrate their utility in three corpus-level use cases, analyzing grammatical interactions, multilingual semantics, and biomedical text retrieval. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of different semantic similarity tasks and models, highlighting how novel explainable AI methods enable in-depth analyses and corpus-level insights.