mstyslavity/prisma_v3 huggingface dataset:
In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs). The knowledge acquired during pre-training is crucial for this few-shot capability, providing the model with task priors. However, recent studies have shown that ICL predominantly relies on retrieving task priors rather than "learning" to perform tasks. This limitation is particularly evident in complex subjective domains such as emotion and morality, where priors significantly influence posterior predictions. In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Moreover, we evaluate the posterior bias towards certain annotators by grounding our study in appropriate, quantitative measures of LLM priors. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead. However, aggregation does not explain the entire gap between ICL and the state of the art, meaning other factors in such tasks also account for the observed phenomena. Finally, by rigorously studying annotator-level labels, we find that it is possible for minority annotators to both better align with LLMs and have their perspectives further amplified.
Language models hold incredible promise for enabling scientific discovery by synthesizing massive research corpora. Many complex scientific research questions have multiple plausible answers, each supported by evidence of varying strength. However, existing language models lack the capability to quantitatively and faithfully compare answer plausibility in terms of supporting evidence. To address this, we introduce Retrieve to Explain (R2E), a retrieval-based model that scores and ranks all possible answers to a research question based on evidence retrieved from a document corpus. The architecture represents each answer only in terms of its supporting evidence, with the answer itself masked. This allows us to extend feature attribution methods such as Shapley values, to transparently attribute answer scores to supporting evidence at inference time. The architecture also allows incorporation of new evidence without retraining, including non-textual data modalities templated into natural language. We developed R2E for the challenging scientific discovery task of drug target identification, a human-in-the-loop process where failures are extremely costly and explainability paramount. When predicting whether drug targets will subsequently be confirmed as efficacious in clinical trials, R2E not only matches non-explainable literature-based models but also surpasses a genetics-based target identification approach used throughout the pharmaceutical industry.
Instruction-based image editing models offer increased personalization opportunities in generative tasks. However, properly evaluating their results is challenging, and most of the existing metrics lag in terms of alignment with human judgment and explainability. To tackle these issues, we introduce DICE (DIfference Coherence Estimator), a model designed to detect localized differences between the original and the edited image and to assess their relevance to the given modification request. DICE consists of two key components: a difference detector and a coherence estimator, both built on an autoregressive Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) and trained using a strategy that leverages self-supervision, distillation from inpainting networks, and full supervision. Through extensive experiments, we evaluate each stage of our pipeline, comparing different MLLMs within the proposed framework. We demonstrate that DICE effectively identifies coherent edits, effectively evaluating images generated by different editing models with a strong correlation with human judgment. We publicly release our source code, models, and data.
Concept-based explainable approaches have emerged as a promising method in explainable AI because they can interpret models in a way that aligns with human reasoning. However, their adaption in the text domain remains limited. Most existing methods rely on predefined concept annotations and cannot discover unseen concepts, while other methods that extract concepts without supervision often produce explanations that are not intuitively comprehensible to humans, potentially diminishing user trust. These methods fall short of discovering comprehensible concepts automatically. To address this issue, we propose \textbf{ECO-Concept}, an intrinsically interpretable framework to discover comprehensible concepts with no concept annotations. ECO-Concept first utilizes an object-centric architecture to extract semantic concepts automatically. Then the comprehensibility of the extracted concepts is evaluated by large language models. Finally, the evaluation result guides the subsequent model fine-tuning to obtain more understandable explanations. Experiments show that our method achieves superior performance across diverse tasks. Further concept evaluations validate that the concepts learned by ECO-Concept surpassed current counterparts in comprehensibility.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the major technological advancements of this century, bearing incredible potential for users through AI-powered applications and tools in numerous domains. Being often black-box (i.e., its decision-making process is unintelligible), developers typically resort to eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to interpret the behaviour of AI models to produce systems that are transparent, fair, reliable, and trustworthy. However, presenting explanations to the user is not trivial and is often left as a secondary aspect of the system's design process, leading to AI systems that are not useful to end-users. This paper presents a Systematic Literature Review on Explanation User Interfaces (XUIs) to gain a deeper understanding of the solutions and design guidelines employed in the academic literature to effectively present explanations to users. To improve the contribution and real-world impact of this survey, we also present a framework for Human-cEnteRed developMent of Explainable user interfaceS (HERMES) to guide practitioners and academics in the design and evaluation of XUIs.
Transformer-based language models, though not explicitly trained to mimic brain recordings, have demonstrated surprising alignment with brain activity. Progress in these models-through increased size, instruction-tuning, and multimodality-has led to better representational alignment with neural data. Recently, a new class of instruction-tuned multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) have emerged, showing remarkable zero-shot capabilities in open-ended multimodal vision tasks. However, it is unknown whether MLLMs, when prompted with natural instructions, lead to better brain alignment and effectively capture instruction-specific representations. To address this, we first investigate brain alignment, i.e., measuring the degree of predictivity of neural visual activity using text output response embeddings from MLLMs as participants engage in watching natural scenes. Experiments with 10 different instructions show that MLLMs exhibit significantly better brain alignment than vision-only models and perform comparably to non-instruction-tuned multimodal models like CLIP. We also find that while these MLLMs are effective at generating high-quality responses suitable to the task-specific instructions, not all instructions are relevant for brain alignment. Further, by varying instructions, we make the MLLMs encode instruction-specific visual concepts related to the input image. This analysis shows that MLLMs effectively capture count-related and recognition-related concepts, demonstrating strong alignment with brain activity. Notably, the majority of the explained variance of the brain encoding models is shared between MLLM embeddings of image captioning and other instructions. These results suggest that enhancing MLLMs' ability to capture task-specific information could lead to better differentiation between various types of instructions, and thereby improving their precision in predicting brain responses.
Ashery et al. recently argue that large language models (LLMs), when paired to play a classic "naming game," spontaneously develop linguistic conventions reminiscent of human social norms. Here, we show that their results are better explained by data leakage: the models simply reproduce conventions they already encountered during pre-training. Despite the authors' mitigation measures, we provide multiple analyses demonstrating that the LLMs recognize the structure of the coordination game and recall its outcomes, rather than exhibit "emergent" conventions. Consequently, the observed behaviors are indistinguishable from memorization of the training corpus. We conclude by pointing to potential alternative strategies and reflecting more generally on the place of LLMs for social science models.
Query performance prediction (QPP) aims to estimate the retrieval quality of a search system for a query without human relevance judgments. Previous QPP methods typically return a single scalar value and do not require the predicted values to approximate a specific information retrieval (IR) evaluation measure, leading to certain drawbacks: (i) a single scalar is insufficient to accurately represent different IR evaluation measures, especially when metrics do not highly correlate, and (ii) a single scalar limits the interpretability of QPP methods because solely using a scalar is insufficient to explain QPP results. To address these issues, we propose a QPP framework using automatically generated relevance judgments (QPP-GenRE), which decomposes QPP into independent subtasks of predicting the relevance of each item in a ranked list to a given query. This allows us to predict any IR evaluation measure using the generated relevance judgments as pseudo-labels. This also allows us to interpret predicted IR evaluation measures, and identify, track and rectify errors in generated relevance judgments to improve QPP quality. We predict an item's relevance by using open-source large language models (LLMs) to ensure scientific reproducibility. We face two main challenges: (i) excessive computational costs of judging an entire corpus for predicting a metric considering recall, and (ii) limited performance in prompting open-source LLMs in a zero-/few-shot manner. To solve the challenges, we devise an approximation strategy to predict an IR measure considering recall and propose to fine-tune open-source LLMs using human-labeled relevance judgments. Experiments on the TREC 2019 to 2022 deep learning tracks and CAsT-19 and 20 datasets show that QPP-GenRE achieves state-of-the-art QPP quality for both lexical and neural rankers.
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in modern society is transforming how individuals perform tasks. In high-risk domains, ensuring human control over AI systems remains a key design challenge. This article presents a novel End-User Development (EUD) approach for black-box AI models, enabling users to edit explanations and influence future predictions through targeted interventions. By combining explainability, user control, and model adaptability, the proposed method advances Human-Centered AI (HCAI), promoting a symbiotic relationship between humans and adaptive, user-tailored AI systems.
This position paper argues that Mean Opinion Score (MOS), while historically foundational, is no longer sufficient as the sole supervisory signal for multimedia quality assessment models. MOS reduces rich, context-sensitive human judgments to a single scalar, obscuring semantic failures, user intent, and the rationale behind quality decisions. We contend that modern quality assessment models must integrate three interdependent capabilities: (1) context-awareness, to adapt evaluations to task-specific goals and viewing conditions; (2) reasoning, to produce interpretable, evidence-grounded justifications for quality judgments; and (3) multimodality, to align perceptual and semantic cues using vision-language models. We critique the limitations of current MOS-centric benchmarks and propose a roadmap for reform: richer datasets with contextual metadata and expert rationales, and new evaluation metrics that assess semantic alignment, reasoning fidelity, and contextual sensitivity. By reframing quality assessment as a contextual, explainable, and multimodal modeling task, we aim to catalyze a shift toward more robust, human-aligned, and trustworthy evaluation systems.
Securing personal identity against deepfake attacks is increasingly critical in the digital age, especially for celebrities and political figures whose faces are easily accessible and frequently targeted. Most existing deepfake detection methods focus on general-purpose scenarios and often ignore the valuable prior knowledge of known facial identities, e.g., "VIP individuals" whose authentic facial data are already available. In this paper, we propose \textbf{VIPGuard}, a unified multimodal framework designed to capture fine-grained and comprehensive facial representations of a given identity, compare them against potentially fake or similar-looking faces, and reason over these comparisons to make accurate and explainable predictions. Specifically, our framework consists of three main stages. First, fine-tune a multimodal large language model (MLLM) to learn detailed and structural facial attributes. Second, we perform identity-level discriminative learning to enable the model to distinguish subtle differences between highly similar faces, including real and fake variations. Finally, we introduce user-specific customization, where we model the unique characteristics of the target face identity and perform semantic reasoning via MLLM to enable personalized and explainable deepfake detection. Our framework shows clear advantages over previous detection works, where traditional detectors mainly rely on low-level visual cues and provide no human-understandable explanations, while other MLLM-based models often lack a detailed understanding of specific face identities. To facilitate the evaluation of our method, we built a comprehensive identity-aware benchmark called \textbf{VIPBench} for personalized deepfake detection, involving the latest 7 face-swapping and 7 entire face synthesis techniques for generation.
This review presents a comprehensive analysis of two emerging paradigms in AI-assisted software development: vibe coding and agentic coding. While both leverage large language models (LLMs), they differ fundamentally in autonomy, architectural design, and the role of the developer. Vibe coding emphasizes intuitive, human-in-the-loop interaction through prompt-based, conversational workflows that support ideation, experimentation, and creative exploration. In contrast, agentic coding enables autonomous software development through goal-driven agents capable of planning, executing, testing, and iterating tasks with minimal human intervention. We propose a detailed taxonomy spanning conceptual foundations, execution models, feedback loops, safety mechanisms, debugging strategies, and real-world tool ecosystems. Through comparative workflow analysis and 20 detailed use cases, we illustrate how vibe systems thrive in early-stage prototyping and education, while agentic systems excel in enterprise-grade automation, codebase refactoring, and CI/CD integration. We further examine emerging trends in hybrid architectures, where natural language interfaces are coupled with autonomous execution pipelines. Finally, we articulate a future roadmap for agentic AI, outlining the infrastructure needed for trustworthy, explainable, and collaborative systems. Our findings suggest that successful AI software engineering will rely not on choosing one paradigm, but on harmonizing their strengths within a unified, human-centered development lifecycle.
Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) can effectively assess, detect, explain, and remediate software vulnerabilities is critical for building robust and secure software systems. We introduce VADER, a human-evaluated benchmark designed explicitly to assess LLM performance across four key vulnerability-handling dimensions: assessment, detection, explanation, and remediation. VADER comprises 174 real-world software vulnerabilities, each carefully curated from GitHub repositories and annotated by security experts. For each vulnerability case, models are tasked with identifying the flaw, classifying it using Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), explaining its underlying cause, proposing a patch, and formulating a test plan. Using a one-shot prompting strategy, we benchmark six state-of-the-art LLMs (Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5, Grok 3 Beta, and o3) on VADER, and human security experts evaluated each response according to a rigorous scoring rubric emphasizing remediation (quality of the code fix, 50%), explanation (20%), and classification and test plan (30%) according to a standardized rubric. Our results show that current state-of-the-art LLMs achieve only moderate success on VADER - OpenAI's o3 attained 54.7% accuracy overall, with others in the 49-54% range, indicating ample room for improvement. Notably, remediation quality is strongly correlated (Pearson r > 0.97) with accurate classification and test plans, suggesting that models that effectively categorize vulnerabilities also tend to fix them well. VADER's comprehensive dataset, detailed evaluation rubrics, scoring tools, and visualized results with confidence intervals are publicly released, providing the community with an interpretable, reproducible benchmark to advance vulnerability-aware LLMs. All code and data are available at: https://github.com/AfterQuery/vader
A key feature of human theory-of-mind is the ability to attribute beliefs to other agents as mentalistic explanations for their behavior. But given the wide variety of beliefs that agents may hold about the world and the rich language we can use to express them, which specific beliefs are people inclined to attribute to others? In this paper, we investigate the hypothesis that people prefer to attribute beliefs that are good explanations for the behavior they observe. We develop a computational model that quantifies the explanatory strength of a (natural language) statement about an agent's beliefs via three factors: accuracy, informativity, and causal relevance to actions, each of which can be computed from a probabilistic generative model of belief-driven behavior. Using this model, we study the role of each factor in how people selectively attribute beliefs to other agents. We investigate this via an experiment where participants watch an agent collect keys hidden in boxes in order to reach a goal, then rank a set of statements describing the agent's beliefs about the boxes' contents. We find that accuracy and informativity perform reasonably well at predicting these rankings when combined, but that causal relevance is the single factor that best explains participants' responses.
Battles, or side-by-side comparisons in so-called arenas that elicit human preferences, have emerged as a popular approach for assessing the output quality of LLMs. Recently, this idea has been extended to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While undoubtedly representing an advance in evaluation, battles have at least two drawbacks, particularly in the context of complex information-seeking queries: they are neither explanatory nor diagnostic. Recently, the nugget evaluation methodology has emerged as a promising approach to evaluate the quality of RAG answers. Nuggets decompose long-form LLM-generated answers into atomic facts, highlighting important pieces of information necessary in a "good" response. In this work, we apply our AutoNuggetizer framework to analyze data from roughly 7K Search Arena battles provided by LMArena in a fully automatic manner. Our results show a significant correlation between nugget scores and human preferences, showcasing promise in our approach to explainable and diagnostic system evaluations. All the code necessary to reproduce results in our work is available in https://github.com/castorini/lmsys_nuggetize.
Humans constantly move their eyes, even during visual fixations, where miniature (or fixational) eye movements occur involuntarily. Fixational eye movements comprise slow components (physiological drift and tremor) and fast components (microsaccades). The complex dynamics of physiological drift can be modeled qualitatively as a statistically self-avoiding random walk (SAW model, Engbert, Mergenthaler, Sinn, & Pikovsky, 2011). In this study, we implement a data assimilation approach for the SAW model to explain statistics of fixational eye movements and microsaccades in experimental data obtained from high-resolution eye-tracking. We discuss and analyze the likelihood function for the SAW model, which allows us to apply Bayesian parameter estimation at the level of individual human observers. Based on model fitting, we find a relationship between the activation predicted by the SAW model and the occurrence of microsaccades. The model's latent activation relative to microsaccade onsets and offsets using experimental data lends support to the existence of a triggering mechanism for microsaccades. Our findings suggest that the SAW model can capture individual differences and serve as a tool for exploring the relationship between physiological drift and microsaccades as the two most essential components of fixational eye movements. Our results contribute to understanding individual variability in microsaccade behaviors and the role of fixational eye movements in visual information processing.
Concept-based Models are a class of inherently explainable networks that improve upon standard Deep Neural Networks by providing a rationale behind their predictions using human-understandable `concepts'. With these models being highly successful in critical applications like medical diagnosis and financial risk prediction, there is a natural push toward their wider adoption in sensitive domains to instill greater trust among diverse stakeholders. However, recent research has uncovered significant limitations in the structure of such networks, their training procedure, underlying assumptions, and their susceptibility to adversarial vulnerabilities. In particular, issues such as concept leakage, entangled representations, and limited robustness to perturbations pose challenges to their reliability and generalization. Additionally, the effectiveness of human interventions in these models remains an open question, raising concerns about their real-world applicability. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey on the risks and limitations associated with Concept-based Models. In particular, we focus on aggregating commonly encountered challenges and the architecture choices mitigating these challenges for Supervised and Unsupervised paradigms. We also examine recent advances in improving their reliability and discuss open problems and promising avenues of future research in this domain.