Research Papers

Postpartum depression (PPD) poses a major burden on maternal and child health, especially in low- and middle-income countries where prevalence exceeds 19%. Despite advancements in machine learning for PPD prediction, current approaches are limited by opaque global explanations that lack clinical usefulness at the patient level, unstable feature selection, and poor generalization under class imbalance. We propose SAGE, a Stability-Aware Graph-Based Ensemble feature selection system that incorporates both local explainable AI and a genetically optimized artificial neural network (GA-ANN). Using a primary cohort of 766 postpartum women, SAGE combines information-theoretic relevance, PCA-based structure, and graph-based interactions with bootstrap stability weighting to identify robust and non-redundant predictors. The GA-ANN architecture, optimized using a genetic algorithm and enhanced with GAN based oversampling, achieved strong performance with 87.96% accuracy, 86.32% F1 score, and 0.88 AUC using only 16 features, outperforming baseline and other feature selection methods. Psychological and socioeconomic factors such as EPDS score, PHQ-9 score, feelings about motherhood, and abuse history are the main predictors, while demographic factors have less influence. The LIME-based explanations allow instance-based insight into selected features from the graph, enabling personalized risk assessment. The findings make SAGE a scalable, interpretable, and clinical tool for early identification of PPD in health-care limited resources.

AI ethics frameworks treat values such as fairness, transparency, and accountability as universal and uniformly operationalizable across contexts. We examined how 14 experts across 10 countries made sense of AI in practice, reinterpreted core values, and envisioned governance alternatives. We found that AI deployment is characterized by structurally unequal conditions, marked by infrastructural constraints, extractive practices, and a "mystification" of technology, which fundamentally shape perceptions of risks and opportunities. Our findings reveal that experts reinterpret values to fit local moral logics: privacy as collective and relational rather than individual; transparency as trust-building accountability rather than technical disclosure; and fairness as equity in access and representation rather than parity in outcomes. We identify these as translation gaps between encoded global frameworks and situated local practices. Finally, we propose pathways toward plural governance that redistributes epistemic authority and treats ethical negotiation as an ongoing, context-sensitive process rather than a settled technical standard.

AI agents are making it easier for the public to interact with government, such as by helping them apply for benefits, understand complex policies, and make their opinions heard. Although improving service accessibility is beneficial, any resulting surges in demand could strain unprepared government services. We term such surges agentic flooding of government services ("flooding") and provide three contributions. First, based on a collected dataset of 84 potential cases of flooding across 11 jurisdictions, we posit that flooding is likely occurring widely today, mostly through large language models (LLMs) generating text cheaply. Second, we evaluate what services are most exposed to flooding. We develop a risk matrix to analyze a service's exposure, and suggest that near-term risk is highest for financially attractive, but complex services. Finally, we map possible government responses to flooding. Precedent suggests these responses will likely be sufficient to stop most cases of flooding, but the fastest to deploy - friction-inducing measures like fees - often trade off equitable access to public services. Accordingly, we close by recommending near-term actions that may allow governments to mitigate flooding without invoking this trade-off.

Platforms summarize providers' past achievements into credentials that buyers use to judge quality. Generative AI can now produce much of the work those achievements certify, raising fears that those quality signals are worthless. We audit how well such credentials stay informative in Kaggle's 2010-2026 archive, where medals are won on predictions scored against withheld answers and two evaluation formats ran side by side. Across 444,698 participations, a medal's power to predict performance sits almost entirely in its first year, in both formats and eras. Fresh medals kept most of their value through the AI transition. About half of the collapse in the informativeness of one format's medals is institutional: the platform had been phasing out that format before AI, and its medal stock aged out on schedule. Old medals look more informative only in isolation. The platform's official lifetime-tier display discards up to a sixth of the medals' predictive power. A recency-weighted index fit before the AI era explains AI-era performance about 13% better than the tiers and selects entrants who perform better on average, though the tiers still identify extreme top performers better. Displaying a recent-performance summary alongside the lifetime tiers would recover the discarded information for buyers.

The growing use of crypto-assets has generated disputes that sit uneasily within existing legal redress mechanisms. Their resolution is complicated by the technical features of blockchain transactions, the cross-border nature of many relationships, and fragmented legal rules. These difficulties are particularly acute for users without legal or technical expertise, who may struggle to identify their rights, organise relevant evidence, or pursue an effective remedy. Crypto-assets may therefore produce new forms of digital exclusion, despite their association with financial accessibility. This paper examines whether a hybrid Online Dispute Resolution framework combining artificial intelligence and blockchain-based smart contracts could mitigate these barriers. In the proposed model, AI operates primarily off-chain, supporting natural-language interaction, dispute classification, evidence organisation, and accessible legal information. Smart contracts perform limited on-chain functions, including dispute registration, timestamping, verification, escrow management, and, where appropriate, execution of agreed outcomes. The framework is human-centred, with emphasis on explainability, procedural guidance, and human oversight in complex cases. The model is examined through disputes involving crypto-asset seizure, exchange failures, and cross-border scams. The paper argues that a carefully delimited hybrid architecture may improve accessibility, transparency, efficiency, and enforceability, provided that automated and human roles are clearly defined. It also addresses key legal and governance concerns, including algorithmic bias, liability, data protection, smart-contract enforceability, and compliance with the EU AI Act and the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. The paper thus proposes a legally grounded framework for more inclusive and robust dispute resolution in crypto-asset environments.

Determining the biological sex of the individuals who created Upper Paleolithic hand stencils remains a challenging problem due to the absence of ground truth, population differences between contemporary and prehistoric groups, and the uncertainty introduced by image degradation. Traditional morphometric methods suffer from high structural overlap across sexes, poor cross-population generalizability, and subjective feature engineering. This study presents an uncertainty-aware deep learning framework for sex attribution in prehistoric hand stencils that explicitly models, propagates, and aggregates uncertainty throughout the analytical pipeline. The methodology combines dual image processing, dual contour extraction, structured silhouette augmentation, model architectural diversity, and ensemble-based decision aggregation. The pipeline generates twelve plausible silhouette realizations per stencil to capture boundary uncertainties, which are processed by two ensembles of ten deep neural networks each (EfficientNet-B3 and MobileViT-S) trained on 14,036 contemporary hand samples. Furthermore, a triangulated validation scheme integrates ensemble predictions with unsupervised 2D latent-space manifold mapping (UMAP + k-NN) and explainable AI spatial attributions (LayerCAM) to ensure anatomical consistency. On contemporary data, ensemble models achieve strong classification performance, with accuracies exceeding 88% in older age groups. When applied to prehistoric stencils, the framework produces both sex predictions and confidence measures of internal agreement, enabling the distinction between morphologically stable and ambiguous cases. Convergence across ensemble predictions, latent-space structure, and interpretability analyses shows that uncertainty can become a measurable component of archaeological inference, enabling robust and reproducible decoding of ancient rock art.

The fair AI/ML literature has long distinguished distributive fairness, concerning how automated systems allocate resources and opportunities, from representational fairness, concerning how they shape the ways individuals and social groups are perceived, understood, and accorded social status. Generative AI is rebalancing these normative dimensions. Unlike predictive systems, large language models (LLMs) and related technologies are fundamentally expressive: their primary function is to convey meaning rather than automate domain-specific decisions. Representational harm has also become central to value alignment, especially in research on what and whose values and perspectives AI systems should represent. Existing approaches to harms in the representation of social groups often appeal to descriptive accuracy, but this strategy has important limitations. For many social groups, no stable or bounded referent exists against which representational accuracy can be judged. It is also unclear who has the authority to decide what counts as misrepresentation, while even accurate representations can reproduce harmful social patterns. The underlying problem, we argue, is therefore not simply misrepresentation but misrecognition. Drawing on political theory, especially Nancy Fraser's account of participatory parity, we show how moving from representational fairness to recognitional justice provides better conceptual and normative tools for governing central fairness challenges in generative AI.

Machine learning ethics researchers and critical HCI scholars have argued that algorithmically predicting gender is wrong. At the same time, other researchers rely on predicted gender labels to study gender disparities and develop algorithmic fairness techniques. How do we reconcile these two seemingly contradictory intuitions? We differentiate two ways gender prediction may be wrong: being illegitimate, thereby contributing to harm; and being invalid, thereby producing unusable measurements. Our analysis translates arguments against gender prediction into these terms of legitimacy and validity and shows how gender imputation applied for fairness purposes can be illegitimate yet still yield valid disparity measurements. We clarify this bind by drawing upon transfeminist literature to distinguish sexism that targets women and femininity from sexism that targets transgender and nonbinary people. While gender imputation can produce valid measurements for the former, it is illegitimate and harmful for the latter. We argue that practitioners should deploy gender imputation only when it would achieve anti-discrimination benefits that cannot be achieved through other reasonable means, while harms are minimized to the extent possible. We examine this tension in three case studies: auditing gender bias in generative image models, measuring gender disparities in film, and imputing gender from personal names. By disentangling legitimacy from validity, and differentiating these two forms of sexism, we show how debates over gender prediction have conflated distinct concerns, obscuring both the settings in which gender imputation can support fairness efforts and the harms towards transgender and nonbinary people that it fundamentally cannot capture. We conclude by recommending the development of more inclusive methods that address all kinds of sexism.

Large language model providers routinely cite multilingual safety benchmarks spanning a dozen or more languages as evidence that their models are safe for non-English-speaking users. We show that these collection-level coverage claims frequently do not survive inspection at the level of an individual language. Auditing 21 resources across 25 language slices, of which 20 count as datasets under our counting rules, spanning three languages chosen to represent low- (Hausa), mid- (Swahili), and high-resource (French) tiers, we find that gaps in provenance, annotation reliability, access, harm-taxonomy coverage, and data reuse recur in patterns that partially, but not fully, track resource level. Using a controlled within-pipeline comparison, we show a Hausa-language slice falling below its own paper's translation-quality acceptance threshold while the same pipeline's Swahili output clears the same bar comfortably; this is evidence that these gaps are measurable and addressable, not inherent. We further show that self-harm and sexual-content categories have no native-language coverage in either African-language tier we studied, a total rather than gradated gap that a purely resource-level account does not predict. We connect these findings to a documented, persistent asymmetry in multilingual jailbreak robustness (single-turn attacks largely mitigated, multi-turn attacks still effective), arguing that this asymmetry is structurally consistent with where our audit finds training and evaluation data thinnest. We contribute a reusable slice-level audit methodology, a cross-tier empirical comparison, and concrete recommendations for dataset creators, model providers, and venues aiming to make ``multilingual coverage'' claims verifiable rather than merely stated. Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ChialukaOnuoha/safety-slice-audit

What if judges already behave like algorithms? As artificial intelligence and algorithms are deployed in many settings, including the judicial system, many have debated whether judges should be allowed to rely on them. Instead, we ask whether judges follow predictable, algorithmic-like rules already. If judges already follow consistent, formula-like rules based on discrete and static factors such as criminal history, age, and charge type, then judicial behavior may be improved. However, if judges rely on individualized information that cannot be identified through court data, then standards-based decision-making may be more challenging to understand or improve. This work explores these questions by studying judicial decision-making in misdemeanor bail hearings in Harris County, Texas. Using available court data, we investigate whether magistrate judges follow what resembles an algorithm; whether they consider the same variables in their decision-making; and whether they are consistent with themselves and with each other. To do this, we train machine learning models for each judge, measure variable importance metrics to determine important variables for each judge's decision-making, and analyze outcomes of similar cases for judges. Our results reveal that these judges generally behave algorithmically: their decisions can be captured by small, interpretable formulas. However, in some cases, judges differ substantially, leading to surprising inconsistency and unequal treatment across similar defendants. Identifying cases where algorithms do not explain judicial decision-making can improve the justice system by focusing attention on decisions where individualized standards, rather than rules, better explains outcomes.

Humans are increasingly expected to interact with AI systems that observe and make inferences about them - but do these systems actually work? A standard approach to answering this question is AI auditing. Conducting an AI audit requires identifying how a system behaves (i.e., determining what types of inputs to audit it with and then observing and documenting actual system behavior) and contrasting that with how a system should behave (i.e., determining what the nominal outputs of a system should look like). We argue that this is best done through a contextual audit, which we introduce as a method for auditing measurements within the context of the practices that produce them. We show how contextual auditing enables the interrogation of assumptions implicit in the audit process and allows auditors to be explicit about what serves as ground truth, which we define as verifiable measurements about the real world against which systems are evaluated. We outline how the concept of symmetry from science and technology studies can enable audits when ground truth is unknown, unknowable, or contested. Finally, to demonstrate how contextual and symmetric audits can be conducted in practice, we present a case study of skeleton inference in motion capture and propose areas suggested by our case study as particularly fruitful for future audits of motion capture systems.

Context: Fairness debt arises from AI development shortcomings that may lead to societal harms. While technical and social debt concern software design decisions and team dynamics, respectively, fairness debt captures the long-term consequences of development decisions that may reinforce bias and inequities in AI-based software systems. Despite growing attention to AI fairness, limited evidence exists on how practitioners recognize potential sources of fairness debt during development. Aim: This study investigates the indicators practitioners recognize as signaling potential sources of fairness debt in AI-based software projects. Method: We conducted an exploratory case study of four AI projects within one organization. Data were collected from 25 professionals through semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires, complemented by observation of internal communication channels and project documentation, and analyzed using iterative qualitative coding, memoing, and constant comparison. Results: We identified six recurring indicators, termed bias smells: Context Oversimplification, Dataset Imbalance, Metrics Inadequacies, Ad hoc Testing, Individual Diversity Unawareness, and Homogeneous Team Composition. These smells span technical and human aspects of software development and signal conditions that may introduce or reinforce bias and contribute to fairness debt. Conclusion: Bias smells extend the software smell paradigm to fairness and provide a foundation for incorporating fairness into software quality assurance through observable indicators.