arXiv AI

Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Explanations-Driven Active Feature Acquisition for Algorithmic Recourse

The paper introduces Explanation-Driven Feature Acquisition (EDFA), a method that jointly optimizes algorithmic recourse and feature acquisition by selecting features based on explanatory value per unit cost. Using Markov Blanket theory, EDFA unifies various explanation types and provides distribution‑free validity guarantees for recourse derived from partial information. Experiments on seven datasets show that EDFA requires fewer features than existing active feature acquisition baselines while maintaining accuracy and producing more actionable recourse.

By Vinura Galwaduge, Jagath Samarabandu
arXiv AI
Sep 25

The Gold in Bias: Maturing the AI Design Process through Verification

The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.

By Samira Maghool, Paolo Ceravolo
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Comparing Explanations is Not Enough, Explain the Change: New Standards are Needed to Explain Behavioral Shifts in Large Language Models

arXiv:2602. 02304v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large-scale foundation models exhibit behavioral shifts when subjected to interventions such as scaling, fine-tuning, reinforcement learning with human feedback, or in-context learning.

By Martino Ciaperoni, Marzio Di Vece, Roberto Pellungrini, Luca Pappalardo, Fosca Giannotti, Francesco Giannini
arXiv AI
4d ago

Which Influence Are We Estimating? The Role of Counterfactual Specifications in Data Attribution

The paper investigates how the definition of influence—specifically the behavior being attributed, the intervention on training data, and the counterfactual training process—affects rankings produced by influence estimators. It formalizes influence as a counterfactual estimand, distinguishes specification mismatch from approximation error, and categorizes existing estimators by their implied specifications. Experiments demonstrate that different specifications can lead to markedly different rankings, and that careful specification choice improves attribution quality in tasks such as noisy label detection and large‑language‑model attribution.

By Zhe Li, Wei Zhao, Peixin Zhang, Jun Sun
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems

The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.

By Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy
arXiv AI
Aug 11

From Trajectories to Evidence: Auditable Experimental Records for Industrial Research Agents

arXiv:2608. 05235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions.

By Zijie Zhuang, Changxin Lao, Pengbo Xu, Hanwen Xu, Ruochen Yang, Yingzhi He, Peng Zhang, Jiangxia Cao, Yusheng Huang, Guohong Mu, Jian Liang, Ruiming Tang, Shuang Yang, Zhaojie Liu, Wenwu Ou, Kun Gai