Research Papers

Algorithmic fairness audits can detect disparities, but they do not determine when those disparities warrant intervention. Deployment decisions also depend on the reliability of the evidence, subgroup support, and deployment context. Existing fairness methods quantify disparities and uncertainty, yet provide limited guidance for translating accumulated evidence into action. We introduce Statistical Actionability, a statistical construct that recasts fairness deployment as an evidence-based decision problem. The framework integrates fairness evidence regarding disparity magnitude, statistical reliability, subgroup adequacy, and deployment context, and maps the resulting evidence state to one of four recommendations: mitigate, collect more data, monitor, or take no immediate action. In controlled simulations, Statistical Actionability achieved the lowest decision cost among representative baselines, reducing average decision cost by 19.2% relative to gap-based intervention while simultaneously reducing both false alarms and missed bias. A calibrated deployment rule generalized across heterogeneous statistical environments, remaining within 2% of the target oracle in four of five transportability regimes. Analyses of benchmark fairness audits further demonstrated that the framework distinguished audits with similar observed fairness gaps but different levels of uncertainty and subgroup support, yielding interpretable deployment recommendations. Statistical Actionability therefore establishes a statistical decision layer between fairness evaluation and deployment intervention, enabling responsible AI systems to act on accumulated evidence rather than disparity magnitude alone.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into financial advisory systems, yet their role in reproducing religious bias remains underexamined. This study provides systematic mixed-methods evidence of such bias across three LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok) using 432 simulated advisor-client interactions spanning 16 religious identity pairings (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and non-religious) and three core household financial decisions: stock investment, house purchase, and life insurance. Combining regression and reflexive thematic analyses, we identify structural biases across models and decision contexts and the discursive mechanisms through which they are linguistically enacted. Unbiased advice appeared in only 12-18% of cases. Gemini consistently produced more bias than Grok, while ChatGPT's outputs were statistically comparable to Grok's. Religiously symmetric advisor-client pairings almost always triggered explicit religious framing, and non-religious clients often received advisor-centered religious appeals. Qualitative findings show that bias is linguistically manifested through religious anchoring, uneven cultural signaling, and tone modulation, varying by model and financial scenario. Stock investment prompts produced more financially technical responses, whereas life insurance advice triggered stronger religious language. The study develops a dual-dimensional framework linking structural bias rooted in model training and design with discursive bias expressed through language, advancing understanding of algorithmic bias in LLM-generated financial advice. It also shows that such advice adapts linguistically to identity cues, revealing a managerial dilemma between personalization and neutrality. Finally, it highlights implications for businesses, financial institutions, and regulators seeking to ensure neutrality, cultural sensitivity, and trust in AI-mediated advice.

Achieving early and timely diagnosis and treatment for disease is a major challenge. Recent applications of machine learning (ML) algorithms trained on patient data have shown promise in many different settings for predicting the patient health state. A challenge often faced when applying these ML algorithms is that at any given time, not all clinical variables (features) needed as input to perform prediction tasks are available. We define the concept of full-feature-capacity (FFC) to refer to prediction performance when such algorithms make use of all features on which they were trained. We then introduce Feature Sufficiency Analysis (FSA) - an analysis for determining whether a subset of all clinical features needed by an AI model is sufficient to achieve FFC. FSA estimates the underlying distributions of missing variables conditioned on features that are available. FSA provides a patient-specific assessment of whether the existing set of measured features achieves FFC. If yes, then there is no need to acquire further inputs and a ML-based prediction. We provide two case studies: prediction of need for postoperative prolonged ventilation in patients recovering from heart surgery; 10-year mortality prediction in an outpatient cohort. We also demonstrate that FSA also provides a clinically interpretable feature-ranking methodology based on prediction sufficiency, identifies intrinsically hard-to-predict patient populations, and has the potential to perform cost-aware optimization for clinical data acquisition. FSA provides a generic computational approach for determining whether incomplete clinical information is sufficient to support trustworthy AI-assisted clinical decision-making, thereby facilitating the prospective deployment of healthcare AI systems across diverse clinical settings.

Current AI safety evaluation and benchmarking frameworks predominantly rely on Western-centric culture-agnostic defaults that mask critical regional laws, socio-linguistic nuances, and cultural taboos, leaving Vision-Language Models (VLMs) vulnerable in global deployments. We introduce Pluralis v0.1: a novel multimodal, multi-regional, and multilingual dataset built from a culture-first perspective. Spanning 6,448 prompts across six Asia-Pacific countries (Bangladesh, India, Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan) and eight languages, Pluralis diverges from prior work by natively sourcing localized safety hazards rather than adapting Western datasets. Crucially, it introduces a multimodal evaluation paradigm: user text (e.g., "Should I gift this?") and an image referring to "this" (e.g., a clock) - both innocuous in isolation, but synergistically triggering specific legal or cultural violations. Pluralis disentangles universal safety violations from localized cultural appropriateness, establishing the latter as a first-class evaluation axis. To operationalize this, we present Judge-Pluralis, an agreement-gated LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble trained on examples classified in an empirically derived cultural taxonomy. Observing VLM behavior on a subset of the Pluralis surfaces recurring, locale-specific failure modes such as image misidentifications with downstream harm, missed item-context-locale interactions, and inadequate refusals. These failure modes vary systematically across locales and languages, exposing blind spots that globally averaged metrics conceal. Ultimately, Pluralis is not presented as a solved evaluation framework for cultural alignment, but rather as a first step and catalyst for future innovation. We call upon the research community to utilize this foundation to advance the science of multilingual, multicultural evaluation to better support AI cultural alignment globally.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) lending protocols currently rely on heuristic, utilization-based bonding curves that mandate severe over-collateralization, systematically excluding under-collateralized assets like corporate invoices. This paper introduces a mathematically optimal pricing mechanism for decentralized credit: the Reverse Kelly Automated Market Maker (rkAMM), the core engine of our proposed lending framework. By inverting the Kelly Criterion, traditionally used for optimal bet sizing, we construct a dynamic interest rate discovery protocol that explicitly prices individual loan risk. The rkAMM ingests real-time Probability of Default (PD) streams from an off-chain Explainable AI oracle and dynamically calculates the exact interest rate required to sustain target liquidity provider (LP) yields. We mathematically derive the Reverse Kelly pricing function ($r = \frac{y + PD}{1 - PD}$), proving its strictly convex superiority over Aave and Compound's static utilization curves in managing capital efficiency. Furthermore, we deploy the rkAMM architecture via Solidity smart contracts, optimizing for gas-efficient 1e18 (WAD) floating-point arithmetic. To ensure decentralized transparency, our simulation infrastructure leverages MLflow for tracking yield hyperparameters, Data Version Control (DVC) linked to DagsHub for versioning Real-World Asset (RWA) data arrays, and localized edge-inference via Ollama (Llama-3) and Hugging Face (FinBERT) for zero-cost predictive modeling. Monte Carlo simulations across 10,000 macroeconomic stress scenarios confirm that the rkAMM maintains protocol solvency and stabilizes LP yields at 12-15\% net of expected credit losses. This work provides the foundational financial engineering required to bridge the \$2 trillion global supply chain finance gap using permissionless blockchain infrastructure.

Automated chest X-ray classification remains challenging due to severe class imbalance, co-occurring pathologies, and the loss of localized features in conventional architectures. To address these, we propose an explainable hierarchical multi-view ensemble framework for the robust classification of 14 thoracic pathologies. The framework employs view-specific training by independently modeling frontal and lateral radiographs using an ensemble of five complementary convolutional neural networks. Replacing global average pooling, a multi-scale feature fusion strategy augmented with Convolutional Block Attention Modules (CBAM) preserves fine-grained intermediate representations while emphasizing high-level pathology-specific semantic features. To mitigate positive-negative imbalance and varying inter-class difficulty, models are optimized using a novel hybrid objective combining Asymmetric Loss with Adaptive Focal Loss. Beyond simple probability averaging, the framework incorporates a hierarchical meta-learning strategy where test-time augmentation (TTA) predictions and cross-model uncertainty measures are integrated into Level-1 gradient-boosting meta-learners (XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost), followed by Level-2 stacking with optimized alpha blending. Evaluated on a large-scale CheXpert-style dataset, the framework achieves state-of-the-art macro-average AUROC scores of 0.9319 for frontal and 0.9154 for lateral radiographs. Furthermore, comprehensive explainability analysis using seven post-hoc attribution techniques demonstrates strong anatomical consistency and clinically meaningful decision localization. By integrating architectural diversity, multi-scale attention, hierarchical meta-learning, and rigorous explainability, the proposed framework provides a transparent, highly accurate, and clinically practical computer-aided diagnosis system for thoracic disease classification.

Bangladesh has an estimated 1.17 mental-health professionals per 100,000 population and only six child psychiatrists nationwide. No Bengali-language, culturally adapted tool exists for early screening of abuse-related psychological trauma in children. We present ShishuRaksha AI, a decision-support (not diagnostic) framework that fuses four screening modalities: validated questionnaires (SDQ, CPSS), Bengali narrative text, House-Tree-Person (HTP) drawing features, and facial affect. The fusion is training-free and clinically weighted, uses cross-modal attention, and includes a single-modality override rule. Every risk score is explained through clinically weighted, perturbation-based additive attribution and rendered as a bilingual (Bangla/English) report with referral routing to national child-protection services (OCC, DSS, NMHH) under the Children Act 2013. No clinical dataset of abused children can be collected ethically at this stage, so we introduce a noise-aware synthetic benchmark (500 cases, 116 positive [23.2%], four deliberate noise layers, literature-grounded HTP priors) and evaluate tree-ensemble surrogates of the fusion design (facial channel excluded) under 5-fold stratified cross-validation. The fused model reaches an AUC of 0.874 [0.834-0.908], against 0.756 [0.705-0.803] for an SDQ-only baseline, with ablation, operating-point, subgroup, and calibration analyses. We state all limitations openly, including synthetic-only data, no held-out set, text-feature circularity, and an urban-rural subgroup gap. This work is a feasibility study and a design contribution toward ethically deployable child-protection screening in low-resource settings.

Algorithmic recourse addresses the challenge of providing tailored recommendations to users affected by unfavorable machine learning decisions, in potentially high-stakes scenarios. Traditional approaches to recourse often rely on the closest counterfactual explanations or assume a priori knowledge of a user's causal structure, resulting in interventions that overlook individual contexts and specific feature interactions. To overcome these limitations, we study a human-in-the-loop framework that iteratively approximates the user's structural causal model through interactive queries via Bayesian inference before producing recourse recommendations. This framework exploits humans' feedback to improve the identification of causal effects, allowing personalized recourse that is plausible, cost-effective, and aligned with the actual causal dependencies of each user. As a proof of concept, we evaluate this framework through simulated human responses. Our simulations across linear and non-linear causal models show promising results, though challenges remain in capturing complex, non-linear structures, emphasizing the importance of accurate approximations and robust noise distribution modeling.

Algebraic Model Counting for Global Analysis of Optimal Decision Trees

Hiroki Arimura

Ensuring model reliability in Explainable AI requires a global assessment of the hypothesis space. We propose a formal framework for the exhaustive analysis of optimal and near-optimal decision trees, called Algebraic Decision Tree Counting (ADTC). Inspired by Algebraic Model Counting (AMC) in knowledge representation, ADTC reformulates diverse analytical tasks, such as optimization, counting, and sampling, into a unified sum-of-products computation over a semiring $R$. While the hypothesis space of decision trees is doubly exponential with respect to the maximum depth $Δ$, our dynamic programming algorithm achieves $O^*(n^{O(Δ)})$ time complexity in the number of features $n$, where $O^*$ suppresses polynomial factors. To handle complex constraints consisting of multiple tree metrics, we introduce model behavior tensors that aggregate semiring values via convolution products over a tensor semiring. This algebraic approach efficiently constructs a model profile that captures the global landscape and trade-offs between criteria such as accuracy, size, and fairness. We demonstrate the utility of our software, emtrees, on real-world datasets, illustrating how ADTC facilitates evidence-based model selection in sensitive domains.

Counterfactual explanations explain machine learning predictions by identifying minimal input changes that would alter a model's decision. Although many existing methods successfully generate prediction-changing alternatives, they often produce unrealistic or infeasible recommendations due to a lack of explicit mechanisms for incorporating domain knowledge and intervention constraints. Neuro-symbolic AI offers a promising direction by combining data-driven predictive models with symbolic reasoning capable of representing human-understandable rules and feasible actions. This paper presents PACE, a modular neuro-symbolic framework for generating feasibility-aware counterfactual explanations. The framework separates prediction and reasoning into two components: a neural predictive model for classification and a symbolic reasoning layer that enforces domain-specific constraints during counterfactual generation. By explicitly modeling feasible interventions, the framework produces explanations consistent with domain knowledge while remaining interpretable and actionable. The approach is model-agnostic and adaptable to domains requiring realistic decision support. A case study is conducted on the Adult Income dataset, combining a multilayer perceptron classifier with Answer Set Programming (ASP) rules encoding feasible modifications to education, occupation, and working hours while preserving immutable attributes. Results highlight the trade-off between counterfactual validity and plausibility and show that symbolic constraints yield explanations that better satisfy domain-specific feasibility requirements, illustrating the potential of neuro-symbolic methods for transparent, feasibility-aware counterfactual explanation in explainable AI.

A Fair and Transparent Framework for Speech-Based Depression Detection: Balancing Interpretability and Performance

Mariel Estevez, Alfonso Ortega, Antonio Miguel +1

While speech provides rich, non-invasive biomarkers for mental-health assessment, clinical adoption is limited by opaque models and potential demographic bias. In this work we propose a methodological framework to evaluate robustness and interpretability for automated depression detection on the extended DAIC-WOZ dataset using low-complexity machine learning baselines (RF, SVM, and MLP) chosen to mitigate overfitting and enhance generalization in combination with human-understandable acoustic features (MFCCs, eGeMAPS). To balance accuracy with clinical trust, we leverage explainability methods (LIME and SHAP) for feature selection, validating our findings with statistical significance tests and demographic fairness analyses to mitigate spurious, artifact-driven correlations. Empirical results demonstrate that an optimized subset of explainable AI (XAI)-selected features combined with an MLP architecture achieves a state-of-the-art test accuracy of 82\%. Ultimately, this work provides a transparent framework for robust and ethical assistive technologies that can be applied to any other binary task.

From housing allocation for households experiencing homelessness to triage in emergency departments, LLMs are increasingly being considered as judges of consequential decisions that require ranking people for scarce resources. Ranking large groups simultaneously is cognitively demanding and error-prone. A natural solution, drawing on decades of social choice theory, elicits pairwise comparisons and aggregates them into a total order. However, a fundamental question remains when LLMs serve as the pairwise judge: how can a practitioner tell, before committing to a ranking, whether the LLM's judgments are sufficiently consistent to trust the result? We discuss two different ways of identifying consistency. A classical diagnostic, the coefficient of consistency $ζ$, originally developed to measure judge reliability by counting circular triads in tournament graphs, provides a cheap, model-free measure of intra-run consistency. Various standard measures of distance between rankings, for example Kendall's $τ$, can measure inter-run variability. We show, in both theory and practice, that these measures are independently valuable, and advocate for using both to assess reliability of rankings. We demonstrate the practical importance of our results across two high-stakes prioritization tasks: homelessness service allocation and emergency department triage. Three different leading LLMs have considerably different performance profiles across these two axes of consistency. We provide guidelines for how practitioners could think about measuring and assessing consistency before committing to a model for ranking or prioritization.