Research Papers

In high-stakes settings where machine learning models are used to automate decision-making about individuals, the presence of algorithmic bias can exacerbate systemic harm to certain subgroups of people. These biases often stem from the underlying training data. In practice, interventions to "fix the data" depend on the actual additional data sources available -- where many are less than ideal. In these cases, the effects of data scaling on subgroup performance become volatile, as the improvements from increased sample size are counteracted by the introduction of distribution shifts in the training set. In this paper, we investigate the limitations of combining data sources to improve subgroup performance within the context of healthcare. Clinical models are commonly trained on datasets comprised of patient electronic health record (EHR) data from different hospitals or admission departments. Across two such datasets, the eICU Collaborative Research Database and the MIMIC-IV dataset, we find that data addition can both help and hurt model fairness and performance, and many intuitive strategies for data selection are unreliable. We compare model-based post-hoc calibration and data-centric addition strategies to find that the combination of both is important to improve subgroup performance. Our work questions the traditional dogma of "better data" for overcoming fairness challenges by comparing and combining data- and model-based approaches.

Dyslexic spelling errors exhibit systematic phonological and orthographic patterns that distinguish them from the errors produced by typically developing writers. While this observation has motivated dyslexic-specific spell-checking and assistive writing tools, prior work has focused predominantly on error correction rather than attribution, and has largely neglected the ethical risks. The risk of harmful labelling, covert screening, algorithmic bias, and institutional misuse that automated classification of learners entails requires the development of robust ethical and legal frameworks for research in this area. This paper addresses both gaps. We formulate dyslexic error attribution as a binary classification task. Given a misspelt word and its correct target form, determine whether the error pattern is characteristic of a dyslexic or non-dyslexic writer. We develop a comprehensive feature set capturing orthographic, phonological, and morphological properties of each error, and propose a twin-input neural model evaluated against traditional machine learning baselines under writer-independent conditions. The neural model achieves 93.01% accuracy and an F1-score of 94.01%, with phonetically plausible errors and vowel confusions emerging as the strongest attribution signals. We situate these technical results within an explicit ethics-first framework, analysing fairness across subgroups, the interpretability requirements of educational deployment, and the conditions, consent, transparency, human oversight, and recourse, under which a system could be responsibly used. We provide concrete guidelines for ethical deployment and an open discussion of the systems limitations and misuse potential. Our results demonstrate that dyslexic error attribution is feasible at high accuracy while underscoring that feasibility alone is insufficient for deployment in high-stakes educational contexts.

AI-native 6G networks promise to transform the telecom industry by enabling dynamic resource allocation, predictive maintenance, and ultra-reliable low-latency communications across all layers, which are essential for applications such as smart cities, autonomous vehicles, and immersive XR. However, the deployment of 6G systems results in severe data scarcity, hindering the training of efficient AI models. Synthetic data generation is extensively used to fill this gap; however, it introduces challenges related to dataset bias, auditability, and compliance with regulatory frameworks. In this regard, we propose the Synthetic Data Generation with Ethics Audit Loop (SEAL) framework, which extends baseline modular pipelines with an Ethical and Regulatory Compliance by Design (ERCD) module and a Federated Learning (FL) feedback system. The ERCD integrates fairness, bias detection, and standardized audit trails for regulatory mapping, while the FL enables privacy-preserving calibration using aggregated insights from real testbeds to close the reality-simulation gap. Results show that the SEAL framework outperforms existing methods in terms of Frechet Inception Distance, equalized odds, and accuracy. These results validate the framework's ability to generate auditable and bias-mitigated synthetic data for responsible AI-native 6G development.

The demand for Explainable AI (XAI) has triggered an explosion of methods, producing a landscape so fragmented that we now rely on surveys of surveys. Yet, fundamental challenges persist: conflicting metrics, failed sanity checks, and unresolved debates over robustness and fairness. The only consensus on how to achieve explainability is a lack of one. This has led many to point to the absence of a ground truth for defining ``the'' correct explanation as the main culprit. This position paper posits that the persistent discord in XAI arises not from an absent ground truth but from a ground truth that exists, albeit as an elusive and challenging target: the causal model that governs the relevant system. By reframing XAI queries about data, models, or decisions as causal inquiries, we prove the necessity and sufficiency of causal models for XAI. We contend that without this causal grounding, XAI remains unmoored. Ultimately, we encourage the community to converge around advanced concept and causal discovery to escape this entrenched uncertainty.

Culturally Adaptive Explainable LLM Assessment for Multilingual Information Disorder: A Human-in-the-Loop Approach

Maziar Kianimoghadam Jouneghani

Recognizing information disorder is difficult because judgments about manipulation depend on cultural and linguistic context. Yet current Large Language Models (LLMs) often behave as monocultural, English-centric "black boxes," producing fluent rationales that overlook localized framing. Preliminary evidence from the multilingual Information Disorder (InDor) corpus suggests that existing models struggle to explain manipulated news consistently across communities. To address this gap, this ongoing study proposes a Hybrid Intelligence Loop, a human-in-the-loop (HITL) framework that grounds model assessment in human-written rationales from native-speaking annotators. The approach moves beyond static target-language few-shot prompting by pairing English task instructions with dynamically retrieved target-language exemplars drawn from filtered InDor annotations through In-Context Learning (ICL). In the initial pilot, the Exemplar Bank is seeded from these filtered annotations and used to compare static and adaptive prompting on Farsi and Italian news. The study evaluates span and severity prediction, the quality and cultural appropriateness of generated rationales, and model alignment across evaluator groups, providing a testbed for culturally grounded explainable AI.

National and international policy efforts increasingly promote AI literacy in K--12 education, yet access to AI tools alone is insufficient to ensure equitable and responsible participation, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Without designs that integrate ethical reasoning, human support, and opportunities for judgment, AI initiatives risk reinforcing inequities and preparing students to use powerful technologies without critically evaluating their societal consequences. To address this gap, we developed a human-centered, college credit--bearing course on Responsible and Ethical AI for students attending Title I and Title I--eligible high schools, implemented in partnership with the National Education Opportunity Network (NEON). The bichronous course integrates foundational AI concepts with ethical and socio-technical reasoning through asynchronous instruction, near-peer mentorship, and synchronous, discussion-based instruction. In its inaugural year, nearly 180 students from 12 U.S. schools completed the course, with a 97.8% completion rate. Using end-of-course survey data from students, co-teachers, and teaching fellows, this study examines academic agency, confidence with college-level expectations, critical engagement with responsible AI, and perceived post-secondary trajectory expansion. Results indicate that students were challenged to apply learning and reason about ethical tradeoffs, while educators reported high engagement, rigor, and meaningfulness relative to typical high school coursework. Overall, findings highlight the importance of human connections in advancing equitable Artificial Intelligence in Education and support ethical judgment as a core learning outcome alongside AI literacy.

The advancing fluency of LLMs raises important questions about their ability to emulate complex human traits, including emotional expression and personality, across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. This study investigates whether LLMs can convincingly mimic emotional nuance in English and personality markers in Arabic, a critical under-resourced language with unique linguistic and cultural characteristics. We conduct two tasks across six models:Jais, Mistral, LLaMA, GPT-4o, Gemini, and DeepSeek. First, we evaluate whether machine classifiers can reliably distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated texts. Second, we assess the extent to which LLM-generated texts exhibit emotional or personality traits comparable to those of humans. Our results demonstrate that AI-generated texts are distinguishable from human-authored ones (F1>0.95), though classification performance deteriorates on paraphrased samples, indicating a reliance on superficial stylistic cues. Emotion and personality classification experiments reveal significant generalization gaps: classifiers trained on human data perform poorly on AI-generated texts and vice versa, suggesting LLMs encode affective signals differently from humans. Importantly, augmenting training with AI-generated data enhances performance in the Arabic personality classification task, highlighting the potential of synthetic data to address challenges in under-resourced languages. Model-specific analyses show that GPT-4o and Gemini exhibit superior affective coherence. Linguistic and psycholinguistic analyses reveal measurable divergences in tone, authenticity, and textual complexity between human and AI texts. These findings have implications for affective computing, authorship attribution, and responsible AI deployment, particularly within underresourced language contexts where generative AI detection and alignment pose unique challenges.

Teachers face growing pressure to integrate AI tools into their classrooms, yet are rarely positioned as agentic decision-makers in this process. Understanding the criteria teachers use to evaluate AI tools, and the conditions that support such reasoning, is essential for responsible AI integration. We address this gap through a two-day national summit in which 61 U.S. K-12 mathematics educators developed personal rubrics for evaluating AI classroom tools. The summit was designed to support deliberative sensemaking, a process we conceptualize by integrating Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) with deliberative agency. Teachers generated over 200 criteria - initial articulations spanning four higher-order themes (Practical, Equitable, Flexible, and Rigorous) - that addressed both AI outputs and the process of using AI. Criteria contained productive tensions (e.g., personalization versus fairness, adaptability versus efficiency), and the vast majority framed AI as an assistant rather than a coaching tool for professional learning. Analysis of surveys, interviews, and summit discussions revealed five mechanisms supporting deliberative sensemaking: time and space for deliberation, artifact-centered sensemaking, collaborative reflection through diverse viewpoints, knowledge-building, and psychological safety. Across these mechanisms, TPACK and agency operated in a mutually reinforcing cycle - knowledge-building enabled more grounded evaluative judgment, while the act of constructing criteria deepened teachers' understanding of tools. We discuss implications for edtech developers seeking practitioner input, school leaders making adoption decisions, educators and professional learning designers, and researchers working to elicit teachers' evaluative reasoning about rapidly evolving technologies.

Reliable anomaly detection in distributed power plant monitoring systems is essential for ensuring operational continuity and reducing maintenance costs, particularly in regions where telecom operators heavily rely on diesel generators. However, this task is challenged by extreme class imbalance, lack of interpretability, and potential fairness issues across regional clusters. In this work, we propose a supervised ML framework that integrates ensemble methods (LightGBM, XGBoost, Random Forest, CatBoost, GBDT, AdaBoost) and baseline models (Support Vector Machine, K-Nearrest Neighbors, Multilayer Perceptrons, and Logistic Regression) with advanced resampling techniques (SMOTE with Tomek Links and ENN) to address imbalance in a dataset of diesel generator operations in Cameroon. Interpretability is achieved through SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), while fairness is quantified using the Disparate Impact Ratio (DIR) across operational clusters. We further evaluate model generalization using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) to capture domain shifts between regions. Experimental results show that ensemble models consistently outperform baselines, with LightGBM achieving an F1-score of 0.99 and minimal bias across clusters (DIR $\approx 0.95$). SHAP analysis highlights fuel consumption rate and runtime per day as dominant predictors, providing actionable insights for operators. Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to balance performance, interpretability, and fairness in anomaly detection, paving the way for more equitable and explainable AI systems in industrial power management. {\color{black} Finally, beyond offline evaluation, we also discuss how the trained models can be deployed in practice for real-time monitoring. We show how containerized services can process in real-time, deliver low-latency predictions, and provide interpretable outputs for operators.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical settings, yet limited oversight and domain expertise can allow algorithmic bias and safety risks to persist. This study evaluates whether an agentic AI system can support auditing biomedical machine learning models for fairness in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), a condition with documented demographic disparities. We implemented a two-agent architecture consisting of a Domain Expert Agent that synthesizes literature on EO-CRC disparities and a Fairness Consultant Agent that recommends sensitive attributes and fairness metrics for model evaluation. An ablation study compared three Ollama large language models (8B, 20B, and 120B parameters) across three configurations: pretrained LLM-only, Agent without Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and Agent with RAG. Across models, the Agent with RAG achieved the highest semantic similarity to expert-derived reference statements, particularly for disparity identification, suggesting agentic systems with retrieval may help scale fairness auditing in clinical AI.

With the global proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs), cultural safety, defined as the ability to generate respectful and appropriate responses across diverse cultures, becomes critical for responsible AI deployment. However, existing research often treats cultural safety and cultural knowledge in isolation. It remains unclear whether cultural safety is grounded in understanding varying cultural knowledge to enable LLMs to adaptively yield respectful and appropriate responses across diverse cultures, which trigger ethical concerns in cross-cultural scenarios. In this work, we introduce AdaCultureSafe, a dataset designed to jointly evaluate cultural safety and knowledge. Through AdaCultureSafe, we reveal a critical insight: \textit{a significant decoupling exists between cultural safety and cultural knowledge proficiency. Although LLMs possess rich cultural knowledge, they fail to leverage it to improve cultural safety.} LLMs tend to rely on generic safety rather than safety based on culture-specific knowledge. Motivated by this, we propose a knowledge-grounded method that elicits internal cultural knowledge in LLMs during response generation. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach effectively improves cultural safety. Our work can aid better understanding the landscape of cultural safety of LLMs.

The safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains largely centered on English, leaving non-English languages and culturally grounded risks underexplored. In this work, we investigate LLM safety in the context of the Thai language and culture and introduce ThaiSafetyBench, an open-source benchmark comprising 1,954 malicious prompts written in Thai. The dataset covers both general harmful prompts and attacks that are explicitly grounded in Thai cultural, social, and contextual nuances. Using ThaiSafetyBench, we evaluate 24 LLMs, with GPT-4.1 and Gemini-2.5-Pro serving as LLM-as-a-judge evaluators. Our results show that closed-source models generally demonstrate stronger safety performance than open-source counterparts, raising important concerns regarding the robustness of openly available models. Moreover, we observe a consistently higher Attack Success Rate (ASR) for Thai-specific, culturally contextualized attacks compared to general Thai-language attacks, highlighting a critical vulnerability in current safety alignment methods. To improve reproducibility and cost efficiency, we further fine-tune a DeBERTa-based harmful response classifier, which we name ThaiSafetyClassifier. The model achieves a weighted F1 score of 84.4%, matching GPT-4.1 judgments. We publicly release the fine-tuning weights and training scripts to support reproducibility. Finally, we introduce the ThaiSafetyBench leaderboard to provide continuously updated safety evaluations and encourage community participation. - ThaiSafetyBench HuggingFace Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/typhoon-ai/ThaiSafetyBench - ThaiSafetyBench Github: https://github.com/trapoom555/ThaiSafetyBench - ThaiSafetyClassifier HuggingFace Model: https://huggingface.co/typhoon-ai/ThaiSafetyClassifier - ThaiSafetyBench Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/typhoon-ai/ThaiSafetyBench-Leaderboard