Research Papers

The Perceptual Gap: Why We Need Accessible XAI for Assistive Technologies

Shadab H. Choudhury

Artificial intelligence systems are widely used by people with sensory disabilities, like loss of vision or hearing, to help perceive or navigate the world around them. This includes tasks like describing an image or object they cannot touch, reading documents, automatically captioning speech, and so on. Presently, models used for these tasks are based on deep neural networks and are thusly black boxes. Explainable AI (XAI) describes methods that can explain why a model gave the output it did. However, existing XAI methodologies are rarely accessible or designed with disabled users in mind. In this paper, we survey existing work in XAI with a focus on human-centered and accessibility-centered approaches or evaluations. We show that there is next-to-no XAI work that accounts for people with sensory disabilities, that many typical explanations are difficult for them to comprehend, and propose possible avenues for future work in Accessible Human-Centered XAI.

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping how students imagine, explore, and prepare for STEM careers across K-16 education. As AI systems increasingly influence feedback, advising, and access to information about opportunities, they are becoming part of the developmental infrastructure that shapes career identity formation and readiness. Yet uncertainty remains about how AI-supported career exploration tools should be designed, governed, and evaluated at scale, particularly across developmental stages and institutional contexts. This half-day workshop convenes researchers, educators, practitioners, and policymakers to examine responsible AI for STEM career development. We focus on four themes: (1) how AI reshapes definitions and assessment of STEM career readiness; (2) appropriate roles and boundaries for AI in career decision-making; (3) developmental alignment of AI supports across the K-16 continuum; and (4) equity-related design considerations that prevent the reproduction of structural disparities. Through lightning talks, structured group activities, and cross-sector dialogue, participants will surface design tensions, articulate governance principles, and identify research gaps. The workshop aims to advance shared language and actionable frameworks for responsible, developmentally grounded AI use in STEM career learning at scale.

Skin tone classification is a fundamental task in computer vision, with applications in quantifying medical features, assessing demographic representativeness, and mitigating algorithmic bias. However, existing datasets either rely on a restrictive 6-tone Fitzpatrick scale, prohibit training through restrictive licenses, or lack representation of extreme skin tones, while current methods often fail to disentangle true skin tone from in-the-wild imaging conditions, degrading to random-classifier performance. We introduce skin tone in the wild (STW), the first open-access dataset annotated with the 10-tone Monk Skin Tone (MST) scale, containing over 42K images and specifically curated to include underrepresented tones. Alongside a rigorous evaluation protocol, we propose SkinToneNet, a ViT-based model that leverages global image context for robust in-the-wild generalization. Experiments show that SkinToneNet achieves 90% weighted off-by-one accuracy, substantially outperforming prior baselines. We further use SkinToneNet to audit widely used face datasets, including CelebA and VGGFace2, revealing substantial representation imbalances across MST tones.

Although automated harmful content detection systems are frequently used to monitor online platforms, moderators and end users frequently cannot understand the logic underlying their predictions. While recent studies have focused on increasing classification accuracy, little focus has been placed on comprehending why neural models identify content as harmful, especially when it comes to borderline, contextual, and politically sensitive situations. In this work, a neural harmful content detection model trained on the Civil Comments dataset is analyzed explainability-drivenly. Two popular post-hoc explanation methods, Shapley Additive Explanations and Integrated Gradients, are used to analyze the behavior of a RoBERTa-based classifier in both correct predictions and systematic failure cases. Despite strong overall performance, with an area under the curve of 0.93 and an accuracy of 0.94, the analysis reveals limitations that are not observable from aggregate evaluation metrics alone. Integrated Gradients appear to extract more diffuse contextual attributions while Shapley Additive Explanations extract more focused attributions on explicit lexical cues. The consequent divergence in their outputs manifests in both false negatives and false positives. Qualitative case studies reveal recurring failure modes such as indirect toxicity, lexical over-attribution, or political discourse. The results suggest that explainable AI can foster human-in-the-loop moderation by exposing model uncertainty and increasing the interpretable rationale behind automated decisions. Most importantly, this work highlights the role of explainability as a transparency and diagnostic resource for online harmful content detection systems rather than as a performance-enhancing lever.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide, yet early risk detection is often limited by available diagnostics. Carotid ultrasound, a non-invasive and widely accessible modality, encodes rich structural and hemodynamic information that is largely untapped. Here, we present a machine learning (ML) framework that extracts clinically meaningful representations of vascular damage (VD) from carotid ultrasound videos, using hypertension as a weak proxy label. The model learns robust features that are biologically plausible, interpretable, and strongly associated with established cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and laboratory measures. High VD stratifies individuals for myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality, matching or outperforming conventional risk models such as SCORE2. Explainable AI analyses reveal that the model relies on vessel morphology and perivascular tissue characteristics, uncovering novel functional and anatomical signatures of vascular damage. This work demonstrates that routine carotid ultrasound contains far more prognostic information than previously recognized. Our approach provides a scalable, non-invasive, and cost-effective tool for population-wide cardiovascular risk assessment, enabling earlier and more personalized prevention strategies without reliance on laboratory tests or complex clinical inputs.

Astra: AI Safety, Trust, & Risk Assessment

Pranav Aggarwal, Ananya Basotia, Debayan Gupta +8

This paper argues that existing global AI safety frameworks exhibit contextual blindness towards India's unique socio-technical landscape. With a population of 1.5 billion and a massive informal economy, India's AI integration faces specific challenges such as caste-based discrimination, linguistic exclusion of vernacular speakers, and infrastructure failures in low-connectivity rural zones, that are frequently overlooked by Western, market-centric narratives. We introduce ASTRA, an empirically grounded AI Safety Risk Database designed to categorize risks through a bottom-up, inductive process. Unlike general taxonomies, ASTRA defines AI Safety Risks specifically as hazards stemming from design flaws such as skewed training sets or lack of guardrails that can be mitigated through technical iteration or architectural changes. This framework employs a tripartite causal taxonomy to evaluate risks based on their implementation timing (development, deployment, or usage), the responsible entity (the system or the user), and the nature of the intent (unintentional vs. intentional). Central to the research is a domain-agnostic ontology that organizes 37 leaf-level risk classes into two primary meta-categories: Social Risks and Frontier/Socio-Structural Risks. By focusing initial efforts on the Education and Financial Lending sectors, the paper establishes a scalable foundation for a "living" regulatory utility intended to evolve alongside India's expanding AI ecosystem.

Expanding the Scope of Computational Thinking in Artificial Intelligence for K-12 Education

Yasmin Kafai, Shuchi Grover

The introduction of generative artificial intelligence applications to the public has led to heated discussions about its potential impacts and risks for K-12 education. One particular challenge has been to decide what students should learn about AI, and how this relates to computational thinking, which has served as an umbrella for promoting and introducing computing education in schools. In this paper, we situate in which ways we should expand computational thinking to include artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. Furthermore, we discuss how these efforts can be informed by lessons learned from the last decade in designing instructional programs, integrating computing with other subjects, and addressing issues of algorithmic bias and justice in teaching computing in schools.

This paper introduces a unified machine learning operations (MLOps) framework that brings ethical artificial intelligence principles into practical use by enforcing fairness, explainability, and governance throughout the machine learning lifecycle. The proposed method reduces bias by lowering the demographic parity difference (DPD) from 0.31 to 0.04 without model retuning, and cross-dataset validation achieves an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 on the Statlog Heart dataset. The framework maintains fairness metrics within operational limits across all deployments. Model deployment is blocked if the DPD exceeds 0.05 or if equalized odds (EO) exceeds 0.05 on the validation set. After deployment, retraining is automatically triggered if the 30-day Kolmogorov-Smirnov drift statistic exceeds 0.20. In production, the system consistently achieved DPD <= 0.05 and EO <= 0.03, while the KS statistic remained <= 0.20. Decision-curve analysis indicates a positive net benefit in the 10 to 20 percent operating range, showing that the mitigated model preserves predictive utility while satisfying fairness constraints. These results demonstrate that automated fairness gates and explainability artefacts can be successfully deployed in production without disrupting operational flow, providing organizations with a practical and credible approach to implementing ethical, transparent, and trustworthy AI across diverse datasets and operational settings.

In real-world federated learning (FL) systems, client participation is intermittent, heterogeneous, and often correlated with data characteristics or resource constraints. Existing fairness approaches in FL primarily focus on equalizing loss or accuracy conditional on participation, implicitly assuming that clients have comparable opportunities to contribute over time. However, when participation itself is uneven, these objectives can lead to systematic under-representation of intermittently available clients, even if per-round performance appears fair. We propose cumulative utility parity, a fairness principle that evaluates whether clients receive comparable long-term benefit per participation opportunity, rather than per training round. To operationalize this notion, we introduce availability-normalized cumulative utility, which disentangles unavoidable physical constraints from avoidable algorithmic bias arising from scheduling and aggregation. Experiments on temporally skewed, non-IID federated benchmarks demonstrate that our approach substantially improves long-term representation parity, while maintaining near-perfect performance.

The convergence of AI and 6G network automation introduces new challenges in maintaining transparency, fairness, and accountability across multivendor management systems. Although closed-loop AI orchestration improves adaptability and self-optimization, it also creates a responsibility gap, where violations of SLAs cannot be causally attributed to specific agents or vendors. This paper presents a hybrid responsible AI-stochastic learning framework that embeds fairness, robustness, and auditability directly into the network control loop. The framework integrates RAI games with stochastic optimization, enabling dynamic adversarial reweighting and probabilistic exploration across heterogeneous vendor domains. An RAAP continuously records AI-driven decision trajectories and produces dual accountability reports: user-level SLA summaries and operator-level responsibility analytics. Experimental evaluations on synthetic two-class multigroup datasets demonstrate that the proposed hybrid model improves the accuracy of the worst group by up to 10.5\%. Specifically, hybrid RAI achieved a WGAcc of 60.5\% and an AvgAcc of 72.7\%, outperforming traditional RAI-GA (50.0\%) and ERM (21.5\%). The audit mechanism successfully traced 99\% simulated SLA violations to the AI entities responsible, producing both vendor and agent-level accountability indices. These results confirm that the proposed hybrid approach enhances fairness and robustness as well as establishes a concrete accountability framework for autonomous SLA assurance in multivendor 6G networks.

The accelerating militarization of artificial intelligence has transformed the ethics, politics, and governance of warfare. This article interrogates how AI-driven targeting systems function as epistemic infrastructures that classify, legitimize, and execute violence, using Israel's conduct in Gaza as a paradigmatic case. Through the lens of responsibility, the article examines three interrelated dimensions: (a) political responsibility, exploring how states exploit AI to accelerate warfare while evading accountability; (b) professional responsibility, addressing the complicity of technologists, engineers, and defense contractors in the weaponization of data; and (c) personal responsibility, probing the moral agency of individuals who participate in or resist algorithmic governance. This is complemented by an examination of the position and influence of those participating in public discourse, whose narratives often obscure or normalize AI-enabled violence. The Gaza case reveals AI not as a neutral instrument but as an active participant in the reproduction of colonial hierarchies and the normalization of atrocity. Ultimately, the paper calls for a reframing of technological agency and accountability in the age of automated warfare. It concludes that confronting algorithmic violence demands a democratization of AI ethics, one that resists technocratic fatalism and centers the lived realities of those most affected by high-tech militarism.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where rare but severe failures can result in irreversible harm. However, prevailing evaluation benchmarks often reduce complex social risk to mean-centered scalar scores, thereby obscuring distributional structure, cross-dimensional interactions, and worst-case behavior. This paper introduces Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles (SHARP), a framework for multidimensional, distribution-aware evaluation of social harm. SHARP models harm as a multivariate random variable and integrates explicit decomposition into bias, fairness, ethics, and epistemic reliability with a union-of-failures aggregation reparameterized as additive cumulative log-risk. The framework further employs risk-sensitive distributional statistics, with Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR95) as a primary metric, to characterize worst-case model behavior. Application of SHARP to eleven frontier LLMs, evaluated on a fixed corpus of n=901 socially sensitive prompts, reveals that models with similar average risk can exhibit more than twofold differences in tail exposure and volatility. Across models, dimension-wise marginal tail behavior varies systematically across harm dimensions, with bias exhibiting the strongest tail severities, epistemic and fairness risks occupying intermediate regimes, and ethical misalignment consistently lower; together, these patterns reveal heterogeneous, model-dependent failure structures that scalar benchmarks conflate. These findings indicate that responsible evaluation and governance of LLMs require moving beyond scalar averages toward multidimensional, tail-sensitive risk profiling.