mstyslavity/prisma_v3 huggingface dataset:
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are increasingly used in critical domains, where reliable explanations are vital for supporting human decision-making. However, the common practice of graph symmetrization discards directional information, leading to significant information loss and misleading explanations. Our analysis demonstrates how this practice compromises explanation fidelity. Through theoretical and empirical studies, we show that preserving directional semantics significantly improves explanation quality, ensuring more faithful insights for human decision-makers. These findings highlight the need for direction-aware GNN explainability in security-critical applications.
The applicability ranges of macroscopic and microscopic electromagnetisms are opposite. While microscopic electromagnetism deals with point sources, singular fields, and discrete atomistic materials, macroscopic electromagnetism concerns smooth average distributions of sources, fields, and homogenized effective metamaterials. Greens function method - GFM - involves finding fields of point sources and applying superposition principle to find fields of distributed sources. When utilized to solve microscopic problems GFM is perfectly within the applicability range. Extension of GFM to simple macroscopic problems is convenient, but not fully logically sound, since point sources and singular fields are technically not a subject of macroscopic electromagnetism. This explains the difficulty of both finding the Greens functions and applying superposition principle in complex isotropy-broken media, which are very different from microscopic environments. In this manuscript, we lay out a path to solution of macroscopic Maxwells equations for distributed sources bypassing GFM, by introducing inverse approach and a method based on Om-potential which we describe here. To the researchers of electromagnetism this provides access to powerful analytical tools and a broad new space of solutions for Maxwells equations.
Gaze-referential inference--the ability to infer what others are looking at--is a critical component of a theory of mind that underpins natural human-AI interaction. In a controlled study, we evaluated this skill across 111 Vision Language Models (VLMs) using photos taken with manipulated difficulty and variability, comparing performance with that of human participants (N = 65), and analyzed behaviors using mixed-effects models. We found that 94 of the 111 VLMs failed to do better than random guessing, while humans achieved near-ceiling accuracy. VLMs even respond with each choice almost equally frequently. Are they randomly guessing? Although most VLMs struggle, when we zoom in on five of the top-tier VLMs with above-chance performance, we find that their performance declined with increasing task difficulty but varied only slightly across different prompts and scene objects. These behavioral features cannot be explained by considering them as random guessers. Instead, they likely use a combination of heuristics and guessing such that their performance is subject to the task difficulty but robust to perceptual variations. This suggests that VLMs, lacking gaze inference capability, have yet to become technologies that can naturally interact with humans, but the potential remains.
The rise of deep learning challenges the longstanding scientific ideal of insight - the human capacity to understand phenomena by uncovering underlying mechanisms. In many modern applications, accurate predictions no longer require interpretable models, prompting debate about whether explainability is a realistic or even meaningful goal. From our perspective in physics, we examine this tension through a concrete case study: a physics-informed neural network (PINN) trained on a rarefied gas dynamics problem governed by the Boltzmann equation. Despite the system's clear structure and well-understood governing laws, the trained network's weights resemble Gaussian-distributed random matrices, with no evident trace of the physical principles involved. This suggests that deep learning and traditional simulation may follow distinct cognitive paths to the same outcome - one grounded in mechanistic insight, the other in statistical interpolation. Our findings raise critical questions about the limits of explainable AI and whether interpretability can - or should-remain a universal standard in artificial reasoning.
Generative models, especially large language models (LLMs), have shown remarkable progress in producing text that appears human-like. However, they often exhibit patterns that make their output easier to detect than text written by humans. In this paper, we investigate how explainable AI (XAI) methods can be used to reduce the detectability of AI-generated text (AIGT) while also introducing a robust ensemble-based detection approach. We begin by training an ensemble classifier to distinguish AIGT from human-written text, then apply SHAP and LIME to identify tokens that most strongly influence its predictions. We propose four explainability-based token replacement strategies to modify these influential tokens. Our findings show that these token replacement approaches can significantly diminish a single classifier's ability to detect AIGT. However, our ensemble classifier maintains strong performance across multiple languages and domains, showing that a multi-model approach can mitigate the impact of token-level manipulations. These results show that XAI methods can make AIGT harder to detect by focusing on the most influential tokens. At the same time, they highlight the need for robust, ensemble-based detection strategies that can adapt to evolving approaches for hiding AIGT.
High-performance computing (HPC) systems expose many interdependent configuration knobs that impact runtime, resource usage, power, and variability. Existing predictive tools model these outcomes, but do not support structured exploration, explanation, or guided reconfiguration. We present WANDER, a decision-support framework that synthesizes alternate configurations using counterfactual analysis aligned with user goals and constraints. We introduce a composite trade-off score that ranks suggestions based on prediction uncertainty, consistency between feature-target relationships using causal models, and similarity between feature distributions against historical data. To our knowledge, WANDER is the first such system to unify prediction, exploration, and explanation for HPC tuning under a common query interface. Across multiple datasets WANDER generates interpretable and trustworthy, human-readable alternatives that guide users to achieve their performance objectives.
Hate speech detection is key to online content moderation, but current models struggle to generalise beyond their training data. This has been linked to dataset biases and the use of sentence-level labels, which fail to teach models the underlying structure of hate speech. In this work, we show that even when models are trained with more fine-grained, span-level annotations (e.g., "artists" is labeled as target and "are parasites" as dehumanising comparison), they struggle to disentangle the meaning of these labels from the surrounding context. As a result, combinations of expressions that deviate from those seen during training remain particularly difficult for models to detect. We investigate whether training on a dataset where expressions occur with equal frequency across all contexts can improve generalisation. To this end, we create U-PLEAD, a dataset of ~364,000 synthetic posts, along with a novel compositional generalisation benchmark of ~8,000 manually validated posts. Training on a combination of U-PLEAD and real data improves compositional generalisation while achieving state-of-the-art performance on the human-sourced PLEAD.
Deep learning models have shown strong performance in classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) from R2* maps, but their decision-making remains opaque, raising concerns about interpretability. Previous studies suggest biases in model decisions, necessitating further analysis. This study uses Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) and spectral clustering to explore classifier decision strategies across preprocessing and training configurations using R2* maps. We trained a 3D convolutional neural network on R2* maps, generating relevance heatmaps via LRP and applied spectral clustering to identify dominant patterns. t-Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) visualization was used to assess clustering structure. Spectral clustering revealed distinct decision patterns, with the relevance-guided model showing the clearest separation between AD and normal control (NC) cases. The t-SNE visualization confirmed that this model aligned heatmap groupings with the underlying subject groups. Our findings highlight the significant impact of preprocessing and training choices on deep learning models trained on R2* maps, even with similar performance metrics. Spectral clustering offers a structured method to identify classification strategy differences, emphasizing the importance of explainability in medical AI.
Clinical trials are critical for advancing medical treatments but remain prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Accurate prediction of clinical trial outcomes can significantly reduce research and development costs and accelerate drug discovery. While recent deep learning models have shown promise by leveraging unstructured data, their black-box nature, lack of interpretability, and vulnerability to label leakage limit their practical use in high-stakes biomedical contexts. In this work, we propose AutoCT, a novel framework that combines the reasoning capabilities of large language models with the explainability of classical machine learning. AutoCT autonomously generates, evaluates, and refines tabular features based on public information without human input. Our method uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to iteratively optimize predictive performance. Experimental results show that AutoCT performs on par with or better than SOTA methods on clinical trial prediction tasks within only a limited number of self-refinement iterations, establishing a new paradigm for scalable, interpretable, and cost-efficient clinical trial prediction.
The experience and adoption of conversational search is tied to the accuracy and completeness of users' mental models -- their internal frameworks for understanding and predicting system behaviour. Thus, understanding these models can reveal areas for design interventions. Transparency is one such intervention which can improve system interpretability and enable mental model alignment. While past research has explored mental models of search engines, those of generative conversational search remain underexplored, even while the popularity of these systems soars. To address this, we conducted a study with 16 participants, who performed 4 search tasks using 4 conversational interfaces of varying transparency levels. Our analysis revealed that most user mental models were too abstract to support users in explaining individual search instances. These results suggest that 1) mental models may pose a barrier to appropriate trust in conversational search, and 2) hybrid web-conversational search is a promising novel direction for future search interface design.
Traditional Business Process Management (BPM) struggles with rigidity, opacity, and scalability in dynamic environments while emerging Large Language Models (LLMs) present transformative opportunities alongside risks. This paper explores four real-world use cases that demonstrate how LLMs, augmented with trustworthy process intelligence, redefine process modeling, prediction, and automation. Grounded in early-stage research projects with industrial partners, the work spans manufacturing, modeling, life-science, and design processes, addressing domain-specific challenges through human-AI collaboration. In manufacturing, an LLM-driven framework integrates uncertainty-aware explainable Machine Learning (ML) with interactive dialogues, transforming opaque predictions into auditable workflows. For process modeling, conversational interfaces democratize BPMN design. Pharmacovigilance agents automate drug safety monitoring via knowledge-graph-augmented LLMs. Finally, sustainable textile design employs multi-agent systems to navigate regulatory and environmental trade-offs. We intend to examine tensions between transparency and efficiency, generalization and specialization, and human agency versus automation. By mapping these trade-offs, we advocate for context-sensitive integration prioritizing domain needs, stakeholder values, and iterative human-in-the-loop workflows over universal solutions. This work provides actionable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming to operationalize LLMs in critical BPM environments.
Early-stage startup investment is a high-risk endeavor characterized by scarce data and uncertain outcomes. Traditional machine learning approaches often require large, labeled datasets and extensive fine-tuning, yet remain opaque and difficult for domain experts to interpret or improve. In this paper, we propose a transparent and data-efficient investment decision framework powered by memory-augmented large language models (LLMs) using in-context learning (ICL). Central to our method is a natural language policy embedded directly into the LLM prompt, enabling the model to apply explicit reasoning patterns and allowing human experts to easily interpret, audit, and iteratively refine the logic. We introduce a lightweight training process that combines few-shot learning with an in-context learning loop, enabling the LLM to update its decision policy iteratively based on structured feedback. With only minimal supervision and no gradient-based optimization, our system predicts startup success far more accurately than existing benchmarks. It is over 20x more precise than random chance, which succeeds 1.9% of the time. It is also 7.1x more precise than the typical 5.6% success rate of top-tier venture capital (VC) firms.
Concept-based explanations work by mapping complex model computations to human-understandable concepts. Evaluating such explanations is very difficult, as it includes not only the quality of the induced space of possible concepts but also how effectively the chosen concepts are communicated to users. Existing evaluation metrics often focus solely on the former, neglecting the latter. We introduce an evaluation framework for measuring concept explanations via automated simulatability: a simulator's ability to predict the explained model's outputs based on the provided explanations. This approach accounts for both the concept space and its interpretation in an end-to-end evaluation. Human studies for simulatability are notoriously difficult to enact, particularly at the scale of a wide, comprehensive empirical evaluation (which is the subject of this work). We propose using large language models (LLMs) as simulators to approximate the evaluation and report various analyses to make such approximations reliable. Our method allows for scalable and consistent evaluation across various models and datasets. We report a comprehensive empirical evaluation using this framework and show that LLMs provide consistent rankings of explanation methods. Code available at https://github.com/AnonymousConSim/ConSim.
Amid ongoing policy and managerial debates on keeping humans in the loop of AI decision-making, we investigate whether human involvement in AI-based service production benefits downstream consumers. Partnering with a large savings bank in Europe, we produced pure AI and human-AI collaborative investment advice, passed it to customers, and examined their advice-taking in a field experiment. On the production side, contrary to concerns that humans might inefficiently override AI output, we find that giving a human banker the final say over AI-generated financial advice does not compromise its quality. More importantly, on the consumption side, customers are more likely to follow investment advice from the human-AI collaboration compared to pure AI, especially when facing riskier decisions. In our setting, this increased reliance leads to higher material welfare for consumers. Additional analyses from the field experiment and an online experiment show that the persuasive power of human-AI advice cannot be explained by consumers' beliefs about enhanced advice quality due to human-AI complementarities. Instead, the benefit stems from human involvement acting as a peripheral cue that increases the advice's affective appeal. Our findings suggest that regulations and guidelines should adopt a consumer-centered approach by fostering service environments in which humans and AI systems can collaborate to improve consumer outcomes. These insights are relevant for managers designing AI-based services and for policymakers advocating for human oversight in AI systems.
The supply of politicians affects the quality of democratic institutions. Yet little is known about the economic motivations that drive individuals into politics. This paper examines how experiencing a job loss affects individuals' decisions to enter political life and explores its implications for political selection. Using highly granular administrative data linking individual records of political participation with comprehensive employer-employee data for all formal workers in Brazil, and leveraging mass layoffs for causal identification, we find that job loss significantly increases the likelihood of joining a political party and running for local office. Layoff-induced candidates are positively selected on various competence measures, suggesting that economic shocks improve the quality of political entrants. Further, we observe that the increase in candidacies is more pronounced among laid-off individuals with greater financial incentives from holding office and higher predicted income losses. Finally, using a regression discontinuity design, we find that eligibility for unemployment benefits increases the likelihood of becoming a party member and running for local office. These results are consistent with the reduction in private-sector opportunity costs and the increased time resources explaining the rise in political entry.
Ensuring the safety of reinforcement learning (RL) policies in high-stakes environments requires not only formal verification but also interpretability and targeted falsification. While model checking provides formal guarantees, its effectiveness is limited by abstraction quality and the completeness of the underlying trajectory dataset. We propose a hybrid framework that integrates (1) explainability, (2) model checking, and (3) risk-guided falsification to achieve both rigor and coverage. Our approach begins by constructing a human-interpretable abstraction of the RL policy using Comprehensible Abstract Policy Summarization (CAPS). This abstract graph, derived from offline trajectories, is both verifier-friendly, semantically meaningful, and can be used as input to Storm probabilistic model checker to verify satisfaction of temporal safety specifications. If the model checker identifies a violation, it will return an interpretable counterexample trace by which the policy fails the safety requirement. However, if no violation is detected, we cannot conclude satisfaction due to potential limitation in the abstraction and coverage of the offline dataset. In such cases, we estimate associated risk during model checking to guide a falsification strategy that prioritizes searching in high-risk states and regions underrepresented in the trajectory dataset. We further provide PAC-style guarantees on the likelihood of uncovering undetected violations. Finally, we incorporate a lightweight safety shield that switches to a fallback policy at runtime when such a risk exceeds a threshold, facilitating failure mitigation without retraining.
Recent studies comparing AI-generated and human-authored literary texts have produced conflicting results: some suggest AI already surpasses human quality, while others argue it still falls short. We start from the hypothesis that such divergences can be largely explained by genuine differences in how readers interpret and value literature, rather than by an intrinsic quality of the texts evaluated. Using five public datasets (1,471 stories, 101 annotators including critics, students, and lay readers), we (i) extract 17 reference-less textual features (e.g., coherence, emotional variance, average sentence length...); (ii) model individual reader preferences, deriving feature importance vectors that reflect their textual priorities; and (iii) analyze these vectors in a shared "preference space". Reader vectors cluster into two profiles: 'surface-focused readers' (mainly non-experts), who prioritize readability and textual richness; and 'holistic readers' (mainly experts), who value thematic development, rhetorical variety, and sentiment dynamics. Our results quantitatively explain how measurements of literary quality are a function of how text features align with each reader's preferences. These findings advocate for reader-sensitive evaluation frameworks in the field of creative text generation.
The mapping from sound to neural activity that underlies hearing is highly non-linear. The first few stages of this mapping in the cochlea have been modelled successfully, with biophysical models built by hand and, more recently, with DNN models trained on datasets simulated by biophysical models. Modelling the auditory brain has been a challenge because central auditory processing is too complex for models to be built by hand, and datasets for training DNN models directly have not been available. Recent work has taken advantage of large-scale high resolution neural recordings from the auditory midbrain to build a DNN model of normal hearing with great success. But this model assumes that auditory processing is the same in all brains, and therefore it cannot capture the widely varying effects of hearing loss. We propose a novel variational-conditional model to learn to encode the space of hearing loss directly from recordings of neural activity in the auditory midbrain of healthy and noise exposed animals. With hearing loss parametrised by only 6 free parameters per animal, our model accurately predicts 62\% of the explainable variance in neural responses from normal hearing animals and 68% for hearing impaired animals, within a few percentage points of state of the art animal specific models. We demonstrate that the model can be used to simulate realistic activity from out of sample animals by fitting only the learned conditioning parameters with Bayesian optimisation, achieving crossentropy loss within 2% of the optimum in 15-30 iterations. Including more animals in the training data slightly improved the performance on unseen animals. This model will enable future development of parametrised hearing loss compensation models trained to directly restore normal neural coding in hearing impaired brains, which can be quickly fitted for a new user by human in the loop optimisation.