mstyslavity/prisma_v3 huggingface dataset:
Current AI systems rely on opaque reasoning processes that hinder human oversight and collaborative potential. Conventional explainable AI approaches offer post-hoc justifications and often fail to establish genuine symbiotic collaboration. In this paper, the Symbiotic Epistemology is presented as a philosophical foundation for human-AI cognitive partnerships. Unlike frameworks that treat AI as a mere tool or replacement, symbiotic epistemology positions AI as a reasoning partner, fostering calibrated trust by aligning human confidence with AI reliability through explicit reasoning patterns and confidence assessments. SynLang (Symbiotic Syntactic Language) is introduced as a formal protocol for transparent human-AI collaboration. The framework is empirically validated through actual human-AI dialogues demonstrating AI's adaptation to structured reasoning protocols and successful metacognitive intervention. The protocol defines two complementary mechanisms: TRACE for high-level reasoning patterns and TRACE_FE for detailed factor explanations. It also integrates confidence quantification, declarative control over AI behavior, and context inheritance for multi-agent coordination. By structuring communication and embedding confidence-calibrated transparency, SynLang, together with symbiotic epistemology, enables AI systems that enhance human intelligence, preserve human agency, and uphold ethical accountability in collaborative decision-making. Through dual-level transparency, beginning with high-level reasoning patterns and progressing to granular explanations, the protocol facilitates rapid comprehension and supports thorough verification of AI decision-making.
Interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is surging. Prior research has primarily focused on systems' ability to generate explanations, often guided by researchers' intuitions rather than end-users' needs. Unfortunately, such approaches have not yielded favorable outcomes when compared to a black-box baseline (i.e., no explanation). To address this gap, this paper advocates a human-centered approach that shifts focus to air traffic controllers (ATCOs) by asking a fundamental yet overlooked question: Do ATCOs need explanations, and if so, why? Insights from air traffic management (ATM), human-computer interaction, and the social sciences were synthesized to provide a holistic understanding of XAI challenges and opportunities in ATM. Evaluating 11 ATM operational goals revealed a clear need for explanations when ATCOs aim to document decisions and rationales for future reference or report generation. Conversely, ATCOs are less likely to seek them when their conflict resolution approach align with the artificial intelligence (AI) advisory. While this is a preliminary study, the findings are expected to inspire broader and deeper inquiries into the design of ATCO-centric XAI systems, paving the way for more effective human-AI interaction in ATM.
When comparing the linguistic capabilities of language models (LMs) with humans using LM probabilities, factors such as the length of the sequence and the unigram frequency of lexical items have a significant effect on LM probabilities in ways that humans are largely robust to. Prior works in comparing LM and human acceptability judgments treat these effects uniformly across models, making a strong assumption that models require the same degree of adjustment to control for length and unigram frequency effects. We propose MORCELA, a new linking theory between LM scores and acceptability judgments where the optimal level of adjustment for these effects is estimated from data via learned parameters for length and unigram frequency. We first show that MORCELA outperforms a commonly used linking theory for acceptability - SLOR (Pauls and Klein, 2012; Lau et al. 2017) - across two families of transformer LMs (Pythia and OPT). Furthermore, we demonstrate that the assumed degrees of adjustment in SLOR for length and unigram frequency overcorrect for these confounds, and that larger models require a lower relative degree of adjustment for unigram frequency, though a significant amount of adjustment is still necessary for all models. Finally, our subsequent analysis shows that larger LMs' lower susceptibility to frequency effects can be explained by an ability to better predict rarer words in context.
Visualizations, alongside summary tables and participant-level listings, are essential for presenting clinical trial results transparently and comprehensively. When reporting the results of clinical trials, the goal of visualization is to communicate the results of specific pre-planned analyses with visualization that are tailored to the endpoint and analysis being reported. We are considering the visualization of HCEs, combining multiple time-to-event outcomes, ordered according to a given prioritization and the timing of events, with a single continuous outcome. An illustrative example is the kidney disease progression HCE with a straightforward structure of the composite of clinical events of death and kidney failure and declines in eGFR as surrogates for kidney failure. The HCEs are analyzed by win statistics and visualized using maraca plots. Although maraca plots are very granular and allow for a detailed presentation of the distribution of HCE, researchers are still tasked with explanation of the magnitude of the treatment effect estimated by win odds. In explaining the magnitude of the treatment effect, we propose a comprehensive visualization approach. In the clinical trial design stage, we propose the sunset plots to visualize all possible treatment effects that can be observed based on the treatment effects on components. In reporting the results of the trial, we recommend the maraca plots as the primary method of visualization of the results. While the 2-d mosaic plot with the ordinal dominance graph directly corresponds to the win odds as treatment effect measure and can be used as the primary analysis-specific visualization method. And finally, we propose the Dustin plot to visualize the supportive analysis of the components, added cumulatively from the event of highest priority to assess the consistency of the treatment effect on all outcomes.
While the increased integration of AI technologies into interactive systems enables them to solve an equally increasing number of tasks, the black box problem of AI models continues to spread throughout the interactive system as a whole. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques can make AI models more accessible by employing post-hoc methods or transitioning to inherently interpretable models. While this makes individual AI models clearer, the overarching system architecture remains opaque. To this end, we propose an approach to represent interactive systems as sequences of structural building blocks, such as AI models and control mechanisms grounded in the literature. These can then be explained through accompanying visual building blocks, such as XAI techniques. The flow and APIs of the structural building blocks form an explicit overview of the system. This serves as a communication basis for both humans and automated agents like LLMs, aligning human and machine interpretability of AI models. We discuss a selection of building blocks and concretize our flow-based approach in an architecture and accompanying prototype interactive system.
Concept-based models are an emerging paradigm in deep learning that constrains the inference process to operate through human-interpretable variables, facilitating explainability and human interaction. However, these architectures, on par with popular opaque neural models, fail to account for the true causal mechanisms underlying the target phenomena represented in the data. This hampers their ability to support causal reasoning tasks, limits out-of-distribution generalization, and hinders the implementation of fairness constraints. To overcome these issues, we propose Causally reliable Concept Bottleneck Models (C$^2$BMs), a class of concept-based architectures that enforce reasoning through a bottleneck of concepts structured according to a model of the real-world causal mechanisms. We also introduce a pipeline to automatically learn this structure from observational data and unstructured background knowledge (e.g., scientific literature). Experimental evidence suggests that C$^2$BMs are more interpretable, causally reliable, and improve responsiveness to interventions w.r.t. standard opaque and concept-based models, while maintaining their accuracy.
As AI regulations around the world intensify their focus on system safety, contestability has become a mandatory, yet ill-defined, safeguard. In XAI, "contestability" remains an empty promise: no formal definition exists, no algorithm guarantees it, and practitioners lack concrete guidance to satisfy regulatory requirements. Grounded in a systematic literature review, this paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI, directly aligned with stakeholder requirements and regulatory mandates. We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical architectures, legal processes, and organizational workflows. To operationalize our framework, we propose the Contestability Assessment Scale, a composite metric built on more than twenty quantitative criteria. Through multiple case studies across diverse application domains, we reveal where state-of-the-art systems fall short and show how our framework drives targeted improvements. By converting contestability from regulatory theory into a practical framework, our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on natural language tasks, but their decision-making processes remain largely opaque. Existing explanation methods either suffer from limited faithfulness to the model's reasoning or produce explanations that humans find difficult to understand. To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{ProtoSurE}, a novel prototype-based surrogate framework that provides faithful and human-understandable explanations for LLMs. ProtoSurE trains an interpretable-by-design surrogate model that aligns with the target LLM while utilizing sentence-level prototypes as human-understandable concepts. Extensive experiments show that ProtoSurE consistently outperforms SOTA explanation methods across diverse LLMs and datasets. Importantly, ProtoSurE demonstrates strong data efficiency, requiring relatively few training examples to achieve good performance, making it practical for real-world applications.
Additive models enjoy the flexibility of nonlinear models while still being readily understandable to humans. By contrast, other nonlinear models, which involve interactions between features, are not only harder to fit but also substantially more complicated to explain. Guided by the principle of parsimony, a data analyst therefore may naturally be reluctant to move beyond an additive model unless it is truly warranted. To put this principle of interaction reluctance into practice, we formulate the problem as a hypothesis test with a fitted sparse additive model (SPAM) serving as the null. Because our hypotheses on interaction effects are formed after fitting a SPAM to the data, we adopt a selective inference approach to construct p-values that properly account for this data adaptivity. Our approach makes use of external randomization to obtain the distribution of test statistics conditional on the SPAM fit, allowing us to derive valid p-values, corrected for the over-optimism introduced by the data-adaptive process prior to the test. Through experiments on simulated and real data, we illustrate that--even with small amounts of external randomization--this rigorous modeling approach enjoys considerable advantages over naive methods and data splitting.
Sparse dictionary learning (and, in particular, sparse autoencoders) attempts to learn a set of human-understandable concepts that can explain variation on an abstract space. A basic limitation of this approach is that it neither exploits nor represents the semantic relationships between the learned concepts. In this paper, we introduce a modified SAE architecture that explicitly models a semantic hierarchy of concepts. Application of this architecture to the internal representations of large language models shows both that semantic hierarchy can be learned, and that doing so improves both reconstruction and interpretability. Additionally, the architecture leads to significant improvements in computational efficiency.
Evaluating tables qualitatively and quantitatively poses a significant challenge, as standard metrics often overlook subtle structural and content-level discrepancies. To address this, we propose a rubric-based evaluation framework that integrates multi-level structural descriptors with fine-grained contextual signals, enabling more precise and consistent table comparison. Building on this, we introduce TabXEval, an eXhaustive and eXplainable two-phase evaluation framework. TabXEval first aligns reference and predicted tables structurally via TabAlign, then performs semantic and syntactic comparison using TabCompare, offering interpretable and granular feedback. We evaluate TabXEval on TabXBench, a diverse, multi-domain benchmark featuring realistic table perturbations and human annotations. A sensitivity-specificity analysis further demonstrates the robustness and explainability of TabXEval across varied table tasks. Code and data are available at https://coral-lab-asu.github.io/tabxeval/
In the symmetric teleparallel gravity framework, we study the cosmic dynamics of the universe with dark energy equation of state (EoS) parameter having non-linear forms. The non-metricity scalar induced by the dark energy EoS parameter evolves with time and, explains the physically reasonable transiting universe evolution in a consistent way. A comparative study has been presented to describe the ability of these models to fit the observational data. By using the Bayesian methods, we constrain the model parameters with the supernovae Ia (SneIa) and expansion rate data. We show that the expansion rate solutions may consistently describe the universe evolution based on cosmological indicators such as the effective EoS parameter, energy density, pressure, current age and the statefinder diagnostic. One may either have the quintom scenario or the future deceleration in these models subjected to the observational constraints.
This paper critically re-evaluates LLMs' role in causal discovery and argues against their direct involvement in determining causal relationships. We demonstrate that LLMs' autoregressive, correlation-driven modeling inherently lacks the theoretical grounding for causal reasoning and introduces unreliability when used as priors in causal discovery algorithms. Through empirical studies, we expose the limitations of existing LLM-based methods and reveal that deliberate prompt engineering (e.g., injecting ground-truth knowledge) could overstate their performance, helping to explain the consistently favorable results reported in much of the current literature. Based on these findings, we strictly confined LLMs' role to a non-decisional auxiliary capacity: LLMs should not participate in determining the existence or directionality of causal relationships, but can assist the search process for causal graphs (e.g., LLM-based heuristic search). Experiments across various settings confirm that, by strictly isolating LLMs from causal decision-making, LLM-guided heuristic search can accelerate the convergence and outperform both traditional and LLM-based methods in causal structure learning. We conclude with a call for the community to shift focus from naively applying LLMs to developing specialized models and training method that respect the core principles of causal discovery.
This article presents a structured framework for Human-AI collaboration in Security Operations Centers (SOCs), integrating AI autonomy, trust calibration, and Human-in-the-loop decision making. Existing frameworks in SOCs often focus narrowly on automation, lacking systematic structures to manage human oversight, trust calibration, and scalable autonomy with AI. Many assume static or binary autonomy settings, failing to account for the varied complexity, criticality, and risk across SOC tasks considering Humans and AI collaboration. To address these limitations, we propose a novel autonomy tiered framework grounded in five levels of AI autonomy from manual to fully autonomous, mapped to Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) roles and task-specific trust thresholds. This enables adaptive and explainable AI integration across core SOC functions, including monitoring, protection, threat detection, alert triage, and incident response. The proposed framework differentiates itself from previous research by creating formal connections between autonomy, trust, and HITL across various SOC levels, which allows for adaptive task distribution according to operational complexity and associated risks. The framework is exemplified through a simulated cyber range that features the cybersecurity AI-Avatar, a fine-tuned LLM-based SOC assistant. The AI-Avatar case study illustrates human-AI collaboration for SOC tasks, reducing alert fatigue, enhancing response coordination, and strategically calibrating trust. This research systematically presents both the theoretical and practical aspects and feasibility of designing next-generation cognitive SOCs that leverage AI not to replace but to enhance human decision-making.
Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing, where LLMs construct and explain answers, better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA, robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations, showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations.
Cybersecurity organizations are adapting to GenAI integration through modified frameworks and hybrid operational processes, with success influenced by existing security maturity, regulatory requirements, and investments in human capital and infrastructure. This qualitative research employs systematic document analysis and comparative case study methodology to examine how cybersecurity organizations adapt their threat modeling frameworks and operational processes to address generative artificial intelligence integration. Through examination of 25 studies from 2022 to 2025, the research documents substantial transformation in organizational approaches to threat modeling, moving from traditional signature-based systems toward frameworks incorporating artificial intelligence capabilities. The research identifies three primary adaptation patterns: Large Language Model integration for security applications, GenAI frameworks for risk detection and response automation, and AI/ML integration for threat hunting. Organizations with mature security infrastructures, particularly in finance and critical infrastructure sectors, demonstrate higher readiness through structured governance approaches, dedicated AI teams, and robust incident response processes. Organizations achieve successful GenAI integration when they maintain appropriate human oversight of automated systems, address data quality concerns and explainability requirements, and establish governance frameworks tailored to their specific sectors. Organizations encounter ongoing difficulties with privacy protection, bias reduction, personnel training, and defending against adversarial attacks. This work advances understanding of how organizations adopt innovative technologies in high-stakes environments and offers actionable insights for cybersecurity professionals implementing GenAI systems.
Recently, LLM agents have made rapid progress in improving their programming capabilities. However, existing benchmarks lack the ability to automatically evaluate from users' perspective, and also lack the explainability of the results of LLM agents' code generation capabilities. Thus, we introduce ProjectEval, a new benchmark for LLM agents project-level code generation's automated evaluation by simulating user interaction. ProjectEval is constructed by LLM with human reviewing. It has three different level inputs of natural languages or code skeletons. ProjectEval can evaluate the generated projects by user interaction simulation for execution, and by code similarity through existing objective indicators. Through ProjectEval, we find that systematic engineering project code, overall understanding of the project and comprehensive analysis capability are the keys for LLM agents to achieve practical projects. Our findings and benchmark provide valuable insights for developing more effective programming agents that can be deployed in future real-world production.
Dysarthria, a motor speech disorder, affects intelligibility and requires targeted interventions for effective communication. In this work, we investigate automated mispronunciation feedback by collecting a dysarthric speech dataset from six speakers reading two passages, annotated by a speech therapist with temporal markers and mispronunciation descriptions. We design a three-stage framework for explainable mispronunciation evaluation: (1) overall clarity scoring, (2) mispronunciation localization, and (3) mispronunciation type classification. We systematically analyze pretrained Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) models in each stage, assessing their effectiveness in dysarthric speech evaluation (Code available at: https://github.com/augmented-human-lab/interspeech25_speechtherapy, Supplementary webpage: https://apps.ahlab.org/interspeech25_speechtherapy/). Our findings offer clinically relevant insights for automating actionable feedback for pronunciation assessment, which could enable independent practice for patients and help therapists deliver more effective interventions.
Recent advancements in table-based reasoning have expanded beyond factoid-level QA to address insight-level tasks, where systems should synthesize implicit knowledge in the table to provide explainable analyses. Although effective, existing studies remain confined to scenarios where a single gold table is given alongside the user query, failing to address cases where users seek comprehensive insights from multiple unknown tables. To bridge these gaps, we propose MT-RAIG Bench, design to evaluate systems on Retrieval-Augmented Insight Generation over Mulitple-Tables. Additionally, to tackle the suboptimality of existing automatic evaluation methods in the table domain, we further introduce a fine-grained evaluation framework MT-RAIG Eval, which achieves better alignment with human quality judgments on the generated insights. We conduct extensive experiments and reveal that even frontier LLMs still struggle with complex multi-table reasoning, establishing our MT-RAIG Bench as a challenging testbed for future research.