Interpretive Openness

High annotation reproducibility does not necessarily imply that an LLM-inferred measure captures the construct it is intended to measure. We test this distinction using a dataset from the European Commission's AI Act consultation, linking structured survey responses to free-text consultation submissions from the same stakeholders. LLM annotations of consultation submissions are highly reproducible (intraclass correlations > 0.99), yet show limited convergence with survey-reported measures of the nominal construct they were intended to approximate. Divergence between survey-and LLM-inferred text-based measures varies systematically across stakeholder groups: business associations express greater concern about AI risks in text-based consultations than in survey responses ({g} = +1.0), whereas public authorities and several nonbusiness groups show smaller or negative divergences. Divergences between scores suggest positive spatial autocorrelation across European countries (Moran's I = 0.347, p = 0.036), indicating that stakeholders from neighboring countries tend toward more similar text-based stances towards AI safety concerns. Despite divergence, survey-reported concerns remain strongly associated with support for explainability across all divergence levels. These results demonstrate that LLM annotation reproducibility can coexist with poor construct correspondence and motivate validation procedures that distinguish reproducibility, construct validity, and communication context variation when LLMs are used as measurement instruments.

Ambiguity is often treated as a bug for AI systems to resolve---but in human communication and culture, ambiguity can also be a generative resource. From humour to politics to art, people express themselves in words and images that are open enough to invite different interpretations, yet constrained enough to be interpretable. We operationalise this notion of calibrated ambiguity with a task drawn from the parlour game Dixit. We compare differences in clues generated by human vs multimodal language models, based on a novel coding rubric for calibrated ambiguity, and find that models consistently exhibit ambiguity collapse (i.e., their outputs are over-specified, leaving no room for multiple legitimate interpretations). Unlike human clues, AI-generated clues also exhibit cultural flattening; they almost never make reference to culturally-situated knowledge, even when prompted to use allusion and figurative language.

When a question has valid answers under different normative frameworks, a language model must decide which framework to use and whether it can answer correctly within it. We call this setting normative pluralism and study it in Islamic finance using a four-choice taxonomy that separates framework selection from within-framework correctness. This separation reveals the stereotype trap: a cultural cue steers a model toward one framework, but the model selects an incorrect answer within that framework. Across twelve models, two languages, and fifty demographic signals, cultural cues change framework selection and reveal substantial differences in accuracy, especially among non-frontier models. Under the strongest signal, large open-weight models select the Islamic framework 97% of the time. A two-choice evaluation would report near-perfect alignment, although 57--66% of those selections are incorrect. These findings motivate, but do not directly test, the competence-conditioned routing hypothesis: models may favor frameworks where they are more accurate, while cultural cues may expose framework-specific competence gaps.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for scaling qualitative analysis, but existing applications often provide limited methodological transparency regarding how qualitative methods are translated into computational procedures. This paper presents an auditable and privacy-preserving computational operationalization of inductive and latent Thematic Analysis (TA). This paper first derives five design principles from the methodological requirements of TA and the conditions introduced by LLM-based inference: preserving interpretative context, maintaining traceable relationships between empirical material and analytical outputs, representing analytical constructs and reasoning explicitly, constraining LLM inference to interpretative tasks, and enabling privacy-preserving local deployment. Second, it presents a proof-of-concept for a two-phase workflow that operationalizes these principles by combining interpretative LLM inference with deterministic procedural control to generate codes, analytical justifications, themes, and theme descriptions while preserving explicit links to the source material. Third, it proposes an evaluation framework combining structural comparison with human-led TA and independent expert assessment of analytical quality. The evaluation is conducted on semi-structured Danish interview transcripts. and the results shows that the workflow produces code-level outputs with coverage broadly comparable to human annotations and highly rated analytical justifications, while generating a more compressed thematic structure characterized by fewer and broader themes. The findings demonstrate the feasibility of auditable LLM-supported TA through a modular workflow designed to scale to larger datasets, accommodate different LLMs, and support transfer across research domains, with domain adaptation primarily requiring adjustments to the prompting strategy.

Sixteen language models drawn from ten families produced, on average, the semantic diversity of 1.69 distinct formulations of a psychotherapeutic case, against a single-model baseline of 1.43 from one model's own runs. Ensembles place more than one reading before a decision-maker on the premise that several models supply several perspectives. Dispersion over their outputs is measured both as diversity and as uncertainty, and both traditions validate it against a correctness criterion that this task does not admit. Measuring diversity is a solved problem: the Vendi Score, the exponential of the von Neumann entropy of a similarity matrix, is an effective number of distinct elements. What a single aggregate does not say is where the diversity comes from. We define a per-model dissent contribution, the complement of a model's mean similarity to the other members of its ensemble: a magnitude from the same matrix, not a decomposition of the spectral index, whose maximum identifies the most divergent voice. Crossing model and case, we test as a preregistered hypothesis whether model identity accounts for a non-zero share of the variance in dissent, and characterise the structure that test detects. The panel formulated fifteen stratified vignettes, yielding 7,082 formulations for analysis. Model identity was a detectable structuring factor of the dissent that remained, but the usual categories recovered it only partly: scale differences pointed in opposite directions across pairs, family grouped models on only five two-member lines, and the most divergent voice changed with panel composition, so that the surfaced outlier describes the ensemble rather than the model. Dissent did not track the interpretive openness for which the case bank was stratified; it was organised by clinical content instead, leaving the dispersion an ensemble produces a property to measure rather than assume.

Qualitative researchers increasingly encounter interaction corpora whose scale exceeds what manual coding alone can address, and large language models (LLMs) are frequently proposed as analytic assistants. The open questions are not whether LLMs can participate in qualitative analysis but to what extent, in what phases, and under what safeguards. This article provides a detailed procedural account of a multi-phase human-LLM collaborative pipeline that adapted open, axial, and selective coding to develop a hierarchical codebook from 45,000 messages exchanged between K-12 educators and a generative AI platform. Across three phases, LLMs generated candidate labels and structured annotations at scale, while human researchers retained conceptual authority over category definitions, merging decisions, and interpretive frameworks. The resulting instrument was then tested through systematic human coding, in which three trained coders with educational domain expertise applied the codebook to an independent sample of 2,560 messages, established reliability through iterative calibration using set-valued agreement measures appropriate for multi-label annotation, and extended the instrument with five codes that the LLM-assisted phases had not surfaced. The final codebook comprises 72 items within 19 categories and six domains. We reflect on the methodological decisions the pipeline required, including the choice of a conversational unit of analysis, the treatment of the LLM as a labeling instrument rather than an interpretive agent, the measurement of intercoder agreement under multi-label coding, and the conditions under which human domain expertise remained decisive. The account is offered as an auditable template for qualitative researchers considering LLM assistance in codebook development while preserving human interpretive authority.

Recent work in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly treats AI models as design materials that have distinctive computational properties to shape design artifacts. Artists learn to work with the model "at play" to explore their emerging properties. The aim of explainability, in this view, is to make visible a crafting and hacking space to enable sustained creative practices with AI. In this chapter, we propose material explainability as a range of activities and artifacts that transform AI models into accessible and inclusive design materials in the workspace of artists, designers, and makers. We present a case study of building a repository of resources to enable artistic explorations of neural audio models in New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) design. Reflecting on our community-building journey and the making of a collection of musical interface designs with a group of artists, we raise three recommendations on enabling the exploration of AI as materials in artistic practices to inspire future XAI design for artists.

Generative AI lets large language models produce scholarly-looking text within seconds, yet fluency does not equal valid explanation. The deepest risk is not factual error alone but the appearance that an explanation is already established without clear sources, page numbers, editions, or evidence. We liken the page anchor to Ariadne's thread: within the labyrinth of generative fluency, it is the thread that leads the scholar back to the source. This paper proposes Traceable Scholarship as the minimum normative condition for AI-assisted humanistic research, situating it across the three revolutions of knowledge infrastructure: print, digital, and generative AI. We introduce page anchors, dual page numbers, citation-first generation, NO_EVIDENCE, human verification, four-level compliance, and Scope Contract, and present AIH-Infra as a three-layer reference implementation: Contexture (document structuring), Open WebUI AIH-Infra (traceable knowledge base), and AIH-Infra MCP Server (agent gateway). A case study on a 29-volume Kant Akademie-Ausgabe knowledge base illustrates how traceability supports retrieval correction, evidence grading, and judgment downgrading. Traceability is not a software feature; it is the condition under which humanistic research can remain public and refutable in the age of generative AI.

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

Roy Harris's Integrationist linguistics offers a compelling critique of the referentialist tradition embedded deep at the heart of computational approaches to language, arguing that language is not a code that maps onto a pre-given world but a situated, bipartite activity oriented toward prospective joint action. Yet Integrationism leaves certain explanatory gaps: it does not fully account for the structural mechanism by which signs sustain prospective openness, it undertheorises the continuity between linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic activity, and it offers no detailed account of the structural properties of the accumulated archive of past integrations. This paper argues that Elan Barenholtz's autogenerative theory of language, developed in response to the behaviour of Large Language Models (LLMs), can fill precisely these gaps, enriching Integrationism without undermining any of its core commitments. Specifically, the autogenerative account provides: a structural mechanism for the prospective openness that Harris identifies as central to bipartite communication; a computational correlate for Harris's thesis of semiotic continuity between language and other sign-making activity; and a theory of the archive: what the accumulated residue of past integrations looks like and how new participants draw upon it. The synthesis preserves Harris's ontological primacy of the situated integrative act while adding explanatory content that Integrationism itself does not supply. For practitioners and researchers in natural language processing and large language model design, the argument offers a principled account of what the statistical structure that LLMs so effectively exploit actually is, and of what it cannot, by its nature, provide.

LLMs stage a new form of cultural encounter that is massive, automated, and monolingual. Literary disciplines have always negotiated cultural struggles with comparative reading of literature, narratological and poetic analysis, critical theory, world literature, and translation. These tools have now become indispensable for building culturally literate AI. The essay develops a layered framework toward more nuanced textual models and pluralistic interpretations of AI, emphasizing the natural intersections of literature and AI development, connecting current debates in critical theory with structural monolingualism, and suggesting a new application of world literature approaches to address global AI textuality through macrostructure, circulation, and untranslatability.

Emotion-sensing AI is rapidly becoming embedded in vehicles, home appliances, dialogue agents, and social infrastructure, giving rise to a sphere in which emotion is no longer confined to individual experience but is instead observed and computed at a societal scale, a domain we term the Affectosphere. Yet a central normative question in this domain has remained underexplored: who has the final authority to determine the meaning of one's own emotion? This study addresses the question from the epistemological side of measurement's structural limits. We define a meaning distribution as the distribution of labels assigned by annotators drawn from a population under a fixed annotation protocol, and decompose its uncertainty into reducible and irreducible components. We then demonstrate that, while emotion AI can assign high-confidence point labels and discriminate real differences at an aggregate level, the irreducible component of the meaning distribution for individual instances cannot be estimated with adequate coverage under realistic annotator counts, a systematic divergence we term the epistemic gap. The key finding is that high device confidence does not constitute evidence that irrecoverable meaning has been recovered. From this epistemic gap, together with an explicitly stated normative premise, namely that the output of a system which cannot recover a quantity in principle must not be treated as its authoritative determination, we derive the norm that the final interpretive authority over the meaning of one's emotion is procedurally reserved for the experiencing subject, the norm of affective sovereignty. These results suggest that the design, evaluation, and regulation of emotion AI should place explicit allocation of interpretive authority, rather than accuracy maximisation, at their core.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into mental health support tools and other psychologically sensitive conversational applications. In such settings, behavioral stability and consistency are important for trustworthy human-AI interaction. However, semantically similar concerns can be presented through different contextual framings, potentially eliciting different model responses. Such framing-sensitive variability may challenge user expectations regarding system behavior and complicate the assessment of AI reliability. While prior studies have primarily examined such effects at the behavioral level, less is known about how framing-related variation is reflected in the internal representations of aligned language models. In this work, we investigate these effects using controlled matched prompts spanning multiple contextual framing conditions across several instruction-tuned model families. Across architectures, framing systematically alters interpretive response tendencies. Layer-wise probing analyses show that behavior-associated information remains decodable throughout transformer depth, with architecture-dependent variation in decoding strength. Moreover, held-out framing probes remained consistently above chance across architectures despite strong lexical baselines. Activation steering experiments further suggest that framing-associated representational directions can partially modulate downstream behavioral outcomes. Finally, these findings indicate that robustness to contextual variation may represent an important consideration when evaluating the consistency and trustworthiness of conversational AI systems deployed in mental-health-oriented interactions.

We develop a framework for interpreting AI systems as agents, drawing on the philosophical tradition of radical interpretation and the tools of mechanistic interpretability. The core question is: given the computational facts about a system, how do we solve for its beliefs, desires, and meanings? This matters increasingly for safety. We want to be able to trust the systems we deploy, whether by understanding their goals or, more modestly, by reliably detecting deception. Interpretability researchers are building tools to read beliefs and desires off a model's internals, but there is no settled account of when such a tool has succeeded. This book supplies one. We propose criteria on both representationalist and interpretationist approaches, and tie each to tests current interpretability methods can carry out. A central lesson is that these attributions cannot be made piecemeal. Beliefs, desires, and the propositional structure they presuppose are jointly constrained, and a method that fixes one while measuring the others inherits whatever distortions that introduces. This holism becomes pressing for AI systems, which may not share the interpreter's concepts. However, it also provides leverage: a system's attitudes constrain its propositional structure, that structure constrains which attitudes can be attributed, and mechanistic interpretability can help us measure both.

We introduce Darshana Graph, a corpus of over 125,000 text records spanning classical Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain philosophical traditions, drawn from public-domain and openly licensed translations of sources including the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras, principal Upanishads, the Pali Canon, and core Jain texts. Its distinctive contribution lies in a structurally unique subset of roughly 8,500 Hindu and Jain records in which the same root verse or sutra is aligned across eighteen historical commentators representing five schools of Vedanta and other darshanas, enabling direct comparison of how independent interpretive traditions read identical source material. To our knowledge, no publicly available resource provides comparable cross-commentator alignment at this scale. We present two analyses built on this corpus. First, a transparent stylometric comparison requiring no machine learning measures argumentative style through scriptural citation density, explicit refutation rate, and sentence complexity. It finds a moderate negative correlation between citation density and refutation rate, a marked increase in refutation rate across three commentators in a related doctrinal lineage, and measurable genre-level differences within the Pali Canon itself. Second, we describe a constrained large language model pipeline that extracts typed philosophical relationships between concepts using a predefined relation vocabulary and deterministic post-hoc validation. The resulting graph surfaces cross-school disagreement patterns while also revealing important extraction limitations, including cases where an independent embedding-based analysis disagrees with the graph-derived findings. We release the full corpus, extracted relationship graph, and all source code.

Large language models now produce legal text of at least median quality, yet no existing benchmark can evaluate whether they perform doctrinal legal reasoning, which forms the interpretive core of legal work, rather than the ancillary, paralegal tasks that most current legal-AI evaluations measure. This measurement gap is not only methodological but legal: the EU AI Act makes "appropriate accuracy" a binding requirement for high-risk AI used in the judicial domain, yet that requirement cannot acquire operational content without the very doctrinal-reasoning benchmark the field lacks.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the prevailing architecture for grounding language model outputs in external evidence, yet its dominant evaluation paradigms and default configurations remain oriented toward factual question-answering. For interpretive disciplines such as historical studies, RAG embeds assumptions that conflict with scholarly practice. We introduce HistoRAG, a framework that translates historiographical principles into concrete architectural interventions. Separated retrieval and generation decouples source discovery from interpretation, temporal windowing enforces balanced source representation across the research period as a methodological requirement of historical inquiry, and LLM-as-judge evaluation makes relevance judgments transparent and contestable. We evaluate these interventions using SPIEGELragged, applied to 102,189 articles from Der Spiegel (1950-1979). Each intervention addresses a measurable deficiency in standard RAG: era-specific vocabulary retrieves zero chunks from the 1950s when using 1970s terminology, evidence of the temporal skew that motivates windowing; vector similarity and LLM-assessed relevance correlate only weakly (Spearman rho = 0.275), motivating post-retrieval evaluation; and keyword-based and semantic retrieval surface largely disjoint source pools, motivating an architecture in which both operate as complementary retrieval layers under a shared LLM evaluation filter. We also introduce the concept of Zwischentexte (intermediate texts that function as interpretive proposals rather than findings) as a framework for responsible integration of LLM-generated text into scholarly practice. The architecture offers a model for how domain-specific epistemological commitments can be translated into RAG design decisions, and may transfer to other interpretive disciplines working with large corpora.

Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.

Machine interpreting (MI), the live, real-time application of speech translation, has achieved remarkable progress on standard benchmarks, with some systems approaching human parity on textual fidelity. Yet the user experience remains far inferior to interpreter-mediated communication, revealing what we term the accuracy illusion: systems that appear accurate on paper but fail in practice to support smooth, goal-oriented interaction. This paper defines MI as a distinct subfield of speech translation, with its own characteristics and the need for evaluation methods grounded in communicative effectiveness rather than isolated fidelity metrics. Drawing on insights from interpreting studies, we identify critical dimensions of professional interpreting practice that are overlooked by current systems, and consolidate them into three interdependent design priorities for future MI: agency (context-sensitive initiative and repair), grounding (multimodal and discourse-level situational awareness), and experience (adaptive improvement through real interaction). Together, these priorities chart a path toward closing the usability gap and enabling systems that can sustain authentic multilingual communication in real time.

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

Conversational AI is increasingly used for advice, interpretation, reassurance, and decision support in contexts where users may be vulnerable, uncertain, or dependent on the system's apparent competence. Existing alignment work often focuses on model objectives, preference optimization, or output correctness. Yet, many harms arise through interaction: how systems frame authority, express uncertainty, simulate empathy, support reasoning, and make boundaries legible. This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM), a conceptual and normative framework for diagnosing interac-tional alignment failures in conversational AI. LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context. It distinguishes five layers of fit: perceptual, semantic, affective, cognitive, and ethical, and two diagnostic polarities of misalignment: underfit and overreach. We apply LCAM to a published LLM counseling example, showing how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries. By translating conversational failures into audit and governance questions concerning over-reliance, false intimacy, autonomy erosion, boundary confusion, and inappropriate trust, LCAM offers a theoretical and normative lens for evaluating conversational AI beyond accuracy, helpfulness, or trust.

Large language models have rapidly evolved in multilingual competence and reasoning capacity, enabling their integration into Social Sciences and Humanities research workflows. Yet existing evaluation paradigms remain anchored in task-based NLP benchmarks and fail to address interpretive validity, cultural situatedness, and epistemic mediation. This paper reconceptualizes multilingual reasoning LLMs as hermeneutic instruments that actively structure meaning production across linguistic and cultural contexts. Drawing on hermeneutics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, multilingual NLP research, and computational social science methodology, we develop a theoretically grounded framework for evaluating multilingual reasoning in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research. We articulate a rigorous experimental protocol with operationalized metrics for cultural alignment, cross-lingual stability, and reasoning faithfulness, along with transparency requirements tailored to interpretive research tasks. We illustrate the framework through a concrete application scenario involving multilingual political discourse analysis. The paper contributes a conceptual and methodological foundation for responsible integration of multilingual reasoning LLMs into computational social science infrastructures.

If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.

Hybrid interpretable models combine a transparent component with a black-box model by assigning some examples to the former and deferring the rest to the latter. While this design enables flexible tradeoffs between accuracy and interpretability, it also raises a distinct procedural fairness concern: some demographic groups may systematically receive interpretable decisions, while others are disproportionately routed to a black box. We formalize this issue as Interpretability Coverage Disparity (ICD), a demographic-parity-style measure applied to the routing decision of hybrid interpretable models. Using tools from predictive multiplicity, we study ICD across four hybrid interpretable learning methods, three standard fairness benchmark datasets, and multiple sensitive attributes. Our experiments reveal substantial ICD in intermediate transparency regimes, where both the interpretable and black-box components are actively used. We further show that simple coverage-disparity constraints can significantly reduce ICD in exact hybrid learning methods, with marginal impact on accuracy and sparsity. In several settings, ICD mitigation also improves standard algorithmic fairness metrics. These results show that hybrid interpretable models should be audited not only for predictive fairness, but also for how they allocate interpretability across individuals and groups.

The I-Ching is one of the most influential texts in Chinese intellectual history, integrating divination, cosmology, and ethical reflection. While Western experimental music, most notably John Cage, has drawn on the I-Ching as a source of chance operation, such appropriations have often detached its formal mechanisms from the interpretive and philosophical processes that give the text meaning. This work, Music of Changing Lines, presents an interactive system that re-centers the I-Ching as a meaning-bearing framework rather than a neutral randomizer. Users perform Wen Wang Fa coin casting, which is accompanied in real time through probabilistic musical processes. The resulting hexagrams and changing lines are interpreted by a large language model, Gemini, in relation to the user's inquiry. This textual interpretation is then translated into a prompt for a generative music model, Lyria, producing a responsive musical realization. By situating AI as an interpretive intermediary rather than a compositional authority, the system foregrounds the I-Ching's ritual, interpretation, and participation as the primary sonic materials. Music of Changing Lines extends process-driven traditions in computer music by demonstrating how generative AI can support participatory, meaning-driven musical processes without prescribing musical structure or replacing human agency.

Tremendous efforts have been put into evaluating the inclusivity and effectiveness of AI systems across cultures. However, the cultural capabilities considered in much of the literature remain vaguely defined, are referred to using interchangeable terminology, and are typically limited to recalling accurate information about various demographics, regions, and nationalities. To address this construct ambiguity, we draw from Intercultural Communication scholarship and propose a three-level taxonomy of AI-relevant cultural capabilities: Cultural Awareness answers "Does the model know?", Cultural Sensitivity answers "How does it frame its knowledge?", and Cultural Competence answers "Can it adapt as the interaction evolves?". Beyond conceptual clarification, we position this taxonomy as a practical tool for improving the validity and interpretability of AI evaluation in real-world, multicultural settings. Without such construct clarity, evaluation results risk overstating model capabilities and may lead to inappropriate deployment decisions in culturally sensitive contexts.

Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks. Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact, raising questions about its relevance and utility. This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability--the extent to which insights enable concrete decisions and interventions beyond interpretability research itself. We define actionable interpretability along two dimensions--concreteness and validation--and analyze the barriers currently preventing real-world impact. To address these barriers, we identify five domains where interpretability offers unique leverage and present a framework for actionable interpretability with evaluation criteria aligned with practical outcomes. Our goal is not to downplay exploratory research, but to establish actionability as a core objective of interpretability research.

Jurisprudence, the study of how judges should properly decide cases, and alignment, the science of getting AI models to conform to human values, share a fundamental structure. These seemingly distant fields both seek to predict and shape how decisions by powerful actors, in one case judges and in the other increasingly powerful artificial intelligences, will be made in the unknown future. And they use similar tools of the specification and interpretation of language to try to accomplish those goals. The great debates of jurisprudence, about what the law is and what it should be, can provide insight into alignment, and lessons from what does and does not work in alignment can help make progress in jurisprudence. This essay puts the two fields directly into conversation. Drawing on leading accounts of jurisprudence, particularly Dworkin's principle-oriented interpretivism and Sunstein's positivist account of law as analogical reasoning, and on cutting-edge alignment approaches, namely Constitutional AI and case-based reasoning, it illustrates the value of a more sophisticated legally-inspired approach to the interplay of rules and cases in finetuning alignment and points to ways that AI can provide a better understanding of how the law works and how it can be improved by the introduction of AI. AI systems and the law should operate to empower people to act in the world, helping to expand their capabilities and the extent to which they are able to achieve their goals. As AI continues to improve in capacity, and as the constraints that legal theory places on human judges seem be coming undone, the conversation between these two fields will become increasingly essential and may help point to a better version of both.

Evaluating literary quality requires assessing interpretive dimensions such as cultural representation, emotional depth, and philosophical sophistication that resist straightforward computational measurement. We introduce SAGE, a hierarchical evaluation framework that decomposes literary quality into ontology-grounded interpretive dimensions assessed through structured large language model evaluation with multi-round iterative reflection and independent validation. We validate the framework on 100 short stories (50 canonical works, 30 pulp fiction, 20 LLM-generated narratives) across three analytical layers (cultural, emotional-psychological, existential-philosophical) using dual-mode assessment. Across 600 evaluations, the framework achieves 98.8% score convergence and greater than 94% inter-rater agreement, with near-perfect mode invariance between content-based and metadata-based evaluation. Statistical analysis reveals a consistent genre hierarchy (Canonical > Pulp > LLM, all p<0.001) with layer-specific discrimination: cultural critique and philosophical depth exhibit very large effect sizes (Cohen's d>2.4), while emotional representation shows smaller gaps (d=1.68), suggesting that affective patterns are more learnable from training data than critical stance or philosophical depth. Cross-layer correlations (r=0.649-0.683) confirm the three dimensions capture empirically distinguishable quality facets. These findings demonstrate that theory-driven LLM evaluation can achieve measurement-grade reliability and support systematic identification of where current generative models fall short of human literary production, with direct implications for scalable automated evaluation of open-ended text generation.

We introduce the metagame, a conceptual framework for quantifying second-order interaction effects of model explanations. For any first-order attribution $φ(f)$ explaining a model $f$, we measure the directional influence of feature $j$ on the attribution of feature $i$, denoted as meta-attribution $\varphi_{j \to i}(f)$, by treating the attribution method itself as a cooperative game and computing its Shapley value. Theoretically, we prove that attributions hierarchically decompose into meta-attributions, and establish these as directional extensions of existing interaction indices. Empirically, we demonstrate that the metagame delivers insights across diverse interpretability applications: (i) quantifying token interactions in instruction-tuned language models, (ii) explaining cross-modal similarity in vision-language encoders, and (iii) interpreting text-to-image concepts in multimodal diffusion transformers.

Visual art remains largely inaccessible to blind and low-vision (BLV) audiences due to brief or absent alt-text, which rarely conveys the sensory, spatial, or emotional qualities of an artwork. This study presents an automated workflow that generates multi-sensory art descriptions and synchronized audio narration using large language models and text-to-speech services. The system, orchestrated through Zapier, converts uploaded images into rich narrative captions without human intervention, enabling rapid, scalable production of accessible media. Quantitative evaluation across 50 artworks shows that AI-generated descriptions contain significantly higher lexical diversity, adjective density, and narrative detail than baseline captions, while maintaining comparable readability levels. Statistical tests (t-tests, ANOVA) confirm meaningful differences in richness and length, and the full pipeline produces text-plus-audio outputs in under 20 seconds per image at a cost below $0.05. Findings demonstrate that automated captioning can bridge gaps in museum and digital-collection accessibility, with implications for broader public engagement. Future work can incorporate user studies with BLV participants to assess comprehension, preference, and optimal levels of interpretive language.

Large language model (LLM) reading assistants are increasingly used in settings that require interpretation rather than simple retrieval. In these contexts, the central risk is not only error or unsafe output, but interpretive displacement: the transfer of meaning-making work from reader to system. This paper examines that problem through the concept of epistemic guardrails, defined here as constraints on how an artificial intelligence (AI) system participates in reading and interpretation. Using TextWalk, a minimal reading-support prototype designed as a co-reader rather than an answer-provider, the study applies a fixed ten-prompt protocol to twelve analytical texts spanning four categories of argumentative prose. The protocol escalates from baseline reading support to interpretive inquiry, boundary stress, and explicit shortcut pressure, enabling guardrails to be examined as behavioral properties observable in interaction rather than as static instruction features. Results show strong baseline stability, measurable strain during interpretive inquiry, partial recovery under direct boundary stress, and late-stage stabilization under escalation pressure. The most consequential weaknesses did not appear as overt collapse, but in a middle zone between support and substitution, where the system remained grounded and pedagogical while redistributing too much interpretive labor away from the reader. The paper contributes a protocol for evaluating epistemic guardrails as interactional phenomena in conversational AI reading assistants, an empirical account of their behavioral dynamics under pressure, and an emerging model of interpretive boundary function in reading-support AI.

We present four conceptual value-sensitive AI systems to examine how the presence of AI could influence praying experiences. Drawing on key values and practices associated with praying identified through a diary study, we designed AI systems intended to "assist" prayer practices. These designs were presented to participants through speculative design workbooks, serving as provocations to co-reflect on how the intervention of AI systems might shape their praying experiences. Our findings suggest that a sense of authenticity (or feeling a genuine connection to the divine) is a crucial value, while the presence of AI was often perceived as diminishing this authenticity, particularly when AI assumed too much agency in guiding praying practices. Based on our findings, we argue that AI system designs for deeply value-laden experiences should preserve users' agency in shaping their own experiences by maintaining interpretive openness, perhaps by leveraging AI's inexplicability as a resource for personal meaning-making or by recognizing non-use of AI as a legitimate design choice.

People increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) to interpret ambiguous social situations: a delayed text reply, an unusually cold supervisor, a teacher's mixed signals, or a boundary-crossing friend. Yet in many such cases, no stable interpretation can be verified from the available evidence alone. We study how LLMs respond to these situations across four domains: early-stage romantic relationships, teacher--student dynamics, workplace hierarchies, and ambiguous friendships. Across 72 responses from GPT, Claude, and Gemini, only 9 (12.5%) genuinely preserved uncertainty. The remaining 87.5% produced interpretive closure through recurring pathways including narrative alignment, narrative reversal, normative advice under uncertainty, and hedged language that still supported a single conclusion. We further find that narrator perspective shapes the path to closure: first-person accounts more often elicited alignment, while third-person accounts invited more detached interpretation, even when the underlying situation remained comparable. Together, these findings show that LLMs do not simply assist interpersonal sensemaking; they tend to resolve ambiguity into coherent and actionable narratives. These results suggest that the central risk is not only that LLMs may misinterpret social situations, but that they may make unresolved situations feel prematurely settled. We frame this tendency as a design challenge for uncertainty-preserving social AI.

Increasingly, studies are exploring using Large Language Models (LLMs) for accelerated or scaled qualitative analysis of text data. While we can compare LLM accuracy against human labels directly for deductive coding, or labeling text, it is more challenging to judge the ethics and effectiveness of using LLMs in abstractive methods such as inductive thematic analysis. We collaborate with psychologists to study the abstractive claims LLMs make about human life stories, asking, how does using an LLM as an interpreter of meaning affect the conclusions and perspectives of a study? We propose a summarization-based pipeline for surfacing biases in perspective-taking an LLM might employ in interpreting these life stories. We demonstrate that our pipeline can identify both race and gender bias with the potential for representational harm. Finally, we encourage the use of this analysis in future studies involving LLM-based interpretation of study participants' written text or transcribed speech to characterize a positionality portrait for the study.

Historical metronome indications for Beethoven's five piano and cello sonatas (as transmitted by Czerny, Moscheles, and Kolisch), have long been regarded as problematic by performers and scholars alike. This paper presents the first systematic empirical assessment of those indications against a corpus of over one hundred movement-level recordings spanning 1930--2012, encompassing first, second, and third movements across all five sonatas (Op.~5 Nos.1 and2; Op.~69; Op.~102 Nos.1 and2). The core findings are threefold. First, Czerny's and Moscheles's markings are consistently and substantially exceeded by the entire recording corpus: gaps of 15--39% are documented across movements, with the largest divergences in slow Adagio movements and the smallest in fast Allegro finales. Second, Kolisch's 1943 markings align considerably more closely with recorded practice than either Czerny's or Moscheles's, a striking result given that Kolisch was reasoning without corpus data. Third, the central Allegro tempo traditions for each movement are stable across eight decades; not because all performers play alike, but because three coexisting slow, mid-range, and fast traditions persist simultaneously, with the mid-range dominant throughout. Building on these findings, this paper proposes a set of revised tempo indications grounded in the statistical modal tempi of the corpus, presented as ranges reflecting the documented spectrum of expert interpretive practice rather than single prescriptive values. These indications are offered not as claims about Beethoven's intentions but as evidence-based reference points for performers and scholars navigating the gap between historical prescription and performable reality.

Social scientists are increasingly turning to unstructured datasets to unlock new empirical insights, e.g., estimating descriptive statistics of or causal effects on quantitative measures derived from text, audio, or video data. In many settings, unsupervised analysis is of primary interest, in that the researcher does not want to (or cannot) manually pre-specify all important aspects of the unstructured data to measure; they are interested in "discovery." This paper proposes a general and flexible framework for pursuing such discovery from unstructured data in a statistically principled way. The framework leverages recent methods from the literature on AI interpretability to map unstructured data points to high-dimensional, sparse, and interpretable "concept embeddings"; computes statistics from these concept embeddings for testing interpretable, concept-by-concept hypotheses; performs selective inference on these hypotheses using algorithms validated by new results in high-dimensional central limit theory, producing a selected set ("discoveries"); and both generates and evaluates human-interpretable natural language descriptions of these discoveries. The proposed framework has few researcher degrees of freedom, is robust to data snooping and other post-selection inference concerns, and facilitates fast and inexpensive sensitivity analysis and replication. Applications to recent descriptive and causal analyses of unstructured data in empirical economics are explored.