Subjectivity

Verbalized confidence, long dismissed as overconfident, coarse, and prone to round-number clustering, is now the more robust soft-scoring mechanism for LLM-as-a-Judge on top-tier proprietary models. Across SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2, spanning up to 18 LLMs, we show that the standard advice to prefer log-probabilities no longer holds on post-2025 models, where verbalized confidence is the better signal. We call this a compatibility shift. On top of a standard verbalized-confidence baseline, we introduce two new ingredients: an overconfidence advisory and self-debate. Together they improve calibration, score-distribution spread, and robustness to task subjectivity. We further observe a generation effect: post-2025 models accommodate these two additions with little balanced-accuracy cost, whereas pre-2025 models pay a measurable penalty. Compared with logprob-based G-Eval, verbalized confidence is the more subjectivity-robust soft signal on GPT-family top-tier releases. The shift is invisible under accuracy-only reporting. Rather than defaulting to hard predictions, we recommend broader use of soft scoring in LLM-as-a-Judge. More broadly, verbalized confidence has moved from a weaker substitute for logprobs to a practical soft-scoring mechanism for contemporary LLM judges.

Narrating the visual component of movies is known as audio description. It is a narrative technique designed to enable blind and visually impaired individuals to follow the story. However, it is far more constrained than most narratives: the descriptions not only need to convey the story in the movie, but they must also fit into gaps between dialogue and they need to conform to guidelines that exist in each region. In this work, we compare audio description created in the United Kingdom against audio description created in the United States. We use guidelines written for these two regions, alongside the impressions from a practitioner in the field, to motivate specific hypotheses about the differences. We test these hypotheses against our pre-existing corpus, which provides both human-authored American and British audio description for each of 206 movies. Results provide quantitative evidence to uphold all tested hypotheses, including differences in lexicon, the use of the progressive aspect, the use of passive constructions, the use of subjective adjectives and modifiers, when characters are named, how scenes are cued, and degree of overlap with movie dialogue and music. Our work offers a quantitative lens into the narrative technique of audio description.

Recommendation systems thrive on personalization, where ''correctness'' is rarely a binary truth but a matter of subjective human preference. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous verifiers of safety and quality guidelines, they face a distinctive challenge: context-aware preference alignment. Recent gains in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are indexed mostly on objective, mathematical tasks. Through a large-scale study spanning both proprietary and open-source models on four real-world verification tasks from a production recommender platform, we ask whether explicit reasoning generalizes to subjective, human-centric industry rubrics. We expose a fundamental vulnerability: rigid, math-centric reasoning traces actively degrade verification, and applying standard RLVR triggers a phenomenon we term reasoning collapse, in which the policy abandons deliberation in favor of rapid heuristic guessing. We introduce a conditional length-penalized post-training algorithm that intertwines verification accuracy with bounded reasoning length, halting collapse and recovering performance. Finally, we show that a reasoning trace's efficacy is tightly coupled with its socio-linguistic framing: across 1500 synthesized personas, verification accuracy swings by nearly 0.38 macro-F1 depending solely on the adopted reasoning persona---evidence that much subjective-verification error is really reasoning-style mismatch. This observation motivates a mid-training architecture that routes reasoning through contextually aligned personas. This work offers both a scalable algorithmic patch and a long-term architectural blueprint for aligning reasoning models with real-world subjective constraints.

Visual perception of walkability varies substantially across individuals, reflecting differences in personal characteristics, experiences, and preferences. Existing studies, however, often reduce these diverse judgements to aggregated scores, implicitly assuming uniform perception, and commonly rely on vehicle-mounted street-view imagery that does not reflect the pedestrian's visual experience. This paper introduces a dataset of 29,870 walkability ratings from 1,196 respondents, linking sidewalk-view imagery across urban, suburban, and regional Australian environments with individual rater attributes, and proposes the first user-conditioned multimodal deep learning framework for walkability perception, fusing visual features with respondent-level representations. A viewpoint-comparison study shows that sidewalk-view images receive significantly higher walkability ratings than matched street-view images, indicating that imagery source is a substantive design decision in perception surveys. The user-conditioned model improves rank agreement with observed ratings by 65% over an image-only baseline (quadratic weighted kappa 0.47 vs. 0.29), demonstrating that who is evaluating an environment carries predictive indication beyond image content alone. These findings support moving from aggregated, observer-independent walkability scores toward models that represent diverse users, enabling more inclusive assessment of pedestrian environments.

Long-horizon video editing agents receive final-product feedback only after many interdependent decisions. Yet editing quality is subjective, admits multiple valid solutions, and is not meaningfully calibrated across heterogeneous requests, making a global scalar objective both ambiguous and temporally uninformative. Our key observation is that fixing the request, materials, and production constraints converts this subjective objective into an ordinal comparison among directly comparable alternatives. We introduce Group-Relative Preference Backpropagation (GRPB), which transforms same-task rankings into zero-sum advantages and redistributes them as bounded credit over semantic editing segments. A lagged allocator and guarded transmission prevent current judgments or unreliable estimates from directly shaping the same rollout group. We manually construct a project-disjoint, horizon-stratified suite of realistic editing tasks for training and controlled evaluation. Across matched baselines, credit interventions, external benchmarking, and blinded human evaluation, GRPB improves both editing behavior and rendered products. The resulting 9B Crayotter model surpasses several proprietary systems on AgenticVBench, supporting task-local preference reduction as a practical approach to learning from subjective, delayed outcomes. Code and all supporting materials are publicly available at https://github.com/idwts/Crayotter.

In this study, we propose a framework that incorporates subjective evaluations provided by a Vision-Language Model (VLM) into the fitness evaluation and selection processes of a genetic algorithm. As the target of evolution, we employ virtual soft robots with flexible morphologies and locomotion and present the VLM with sequence images representing the locomotion of two individuals. Selection is performed via pairwise comparisons based on subjective evaluation terms such as adorably and weirdly. The outcomes of these comparisons are used as selection pressure within the genetic algorithm, enabling the simultaneous evolution of morphology and locomotion. Experimental results demonstrate that subjective selection by the VLM accelerates population convergence compared to random selection, while also giving rise to distinctive morphologies and motions corresponding to each evaluation term. An auxiliary experiment with human participants further showed that, although individual pairwise choices only partly agreed with the VLM selections, the resulting morphological and locomotion tendencies were qualitatively similar and repeated human evaluations imposed noticeable fatigue. Moreover, the observation that similar evolutionary outcomes emerged across different evaluation terms suggests that the VLM does not apply these terms in a purely literal manner but instead decomposes them into multiple internal evaluation criteria when making judgments. This work visualizes the evolutionary process through which subjective linguistic expressions are mapped onto embodied phenotypes and provides a foundational framework for analyzing the structure of subjective judgment in VLMs. The proposed approach is expected to contribute to new developments in evolutionary computation and artificial life research based on subjective evaluation.

While ML can produce complex models beyond those that a human could produce manually, incorporating human input can often improve performance beyond purely data-driven models. While this feedback could come from system designers or domain experts, in many cases, the end users who regularly use the system will naturally develop an understanding of its flaws and desire the ability to change the system's behavior based on their knowledge. While soliciting feedback from end users can result in significant model improvement over time, introducing these feedback techniques can also affect several human factors-such as trust or perception of system accuracy-that are not yet fully understood and have different effects reported in the existing literature. Therefore, we sought to build on the existing research to further explore how the act of providing feedback can affect user understanding of an intelligent system and its accuracy in different contexts. We present three controlled experiments that study the effects of interactive feedback collections on user impressions in domains with objective and subjective feedback. The results show that in a context where there is an objectively correct answer, providing HITL feedback lowered both participants' trust in the system and their perception of system accuracy, regardless of whether the system accuracy improved in response to their feedback. However, when the feedback being provided involved subjective opinion, no such negative bias was observed. Furthermore, in the objective context, participants distrusted the system over time, whereas participants in the subjective context mistrusted the system over time. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of allowing different types of end-user feedback on user trust when designing intelligent systems.

Recent work has shown that LLMs overrepresent dominant cultures, particularly Western ones, while marginalizing others. We investigate whether this affects models' ability to generate culturally adapted responses by evaluating their use of local measurement units based on the user's perceived cultural background. We introduce Cultural and Pragmatic Response Inference (CAPRI), a dataset of conversations with varying levels of cultural cues. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs show that models can infer cultural background and recall relevant conventions, but often fail to utilize the information to adapt their answers to the relevant cultural conventions, unless explicitly prompted to perform the tasks sequentially. We further evaluate adaptation to the interpretation of time and quantity expressions, two subjective language grounding dimensions that are affected by culture. We find that models increasingly adapt their answers as cultural cues accumulate, but their priors are not culture-neutral, sometimes aligning with the model's country of origin. Overall, CAPRI provides a resource for future research aimed at narrowing the gap between cultural knowledge and culturally adaptive language generation.

Measuring subjective constructs in naturally occurring social media text requires annotation procedures that are theoretically grounded, empirically validated, and transferable to an encoder model for scalable prediction. Using non-English social media posts annotated according to Schwartz's theory of basic human values, we investigate how different LLMs, prompts, and instruction languages operationalize the expression of values in text. We argue that although texts may permit multiple plausible interpretations, theory-based value definitions can constrain interpretations and reduce spurious value attributions. Beyond precision, recall, and F1, we evaluate structural alignment between values, error structure, confidence-ambiguity relations, and annotation stability. We show that different LLMs produce different value interpretations. Iterative prompt calibration through error analysis reduces misattributions and improves alignment with expert annotations. We also derive targeted expert verification rules from recurrent error structures and use them during corpus annotation. Finally, we show that LLM annotations can be transferred to an encoder model through soft-label training, retaining theory-based value interpretations and information about uncertainty in value expression.

As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person. We argue the gate is the easy part; the hard part is the judgment - which actions to stop - which the field evaluates against two false assumptions: that there is a ground-truth notion of "risky," and that the human reviewer is a perfect, infinitely-available oracle. On a hand-labeled set of 125 adversarially-weighted agent actions we show that (i) reviewers only moderately agree on what is risky (Fleiss' kappa = 0.52), so there is no single correct label; (ii) framing the guard as selective classification under asymmetric cost makes its operating limits measurable, and on hard inputs the guard cannot safely auto-decide; and (iii) when the reviewer is modeled as endogenous (fatiguing as escalation load grows), realized safety becomes an inverted-U in the escalation rate: more human oversight can make a system less safe, and the safety-optimal guard escalates below full escalation - a setting a load-aware policy also uses to resist a flooding attack that slips a malicious action past a fatigued reviewer. Agent oversight, framed this way, is not only a classification problem but a resource-allocation one: human attention is finite, and the guard's escalation policy spends it. We claim none of these mechanisms as novel - fatigue-aware learning-to-defer (FALCON), cost-sensitive deferral under workload constraints (DeCCaF), trajectory-level guarding, and reviewer-fatigue/flooding attacks are all prior art we cite. Our contribution is an open-source agent-oversight system that operationalizes and measures them in the LLM-agent action-gating setting, turning "is my guard good?" from a guess into a curve. The inverted-U and the flooding attack are modeling results that motivate a human study.

As autonomous AI agents move from conversational systems to long-horizon software execution, runtime safety layers that decide when to interrupt an agent have become essential. We study this timing problem using a continuous 18-dimensional affective-dynamics engine (HEART) as a diagnostic probe, evaluating four intervention trigger families - absolute state thresholds, composite state-action patterns, regex reasoning-feature extraction, and zero-shot LLM-as-judge - against human-annotated intervention points on SWE-bench-Verified debugging traces. We report three findings. First, a State Saturation Trap: agents show no recovery signal under sustained difficulty, so modeled frustration quickly crosses the threshold and stays at its maximum, converting threshold-on-state triggers from moment detectors into near-constant indicators that fire on 39-83% of actions across five trajectories. Second, a capability-and-context floor for LLM judges: a small model (gpt-5.4-mini) never fires, while frontier and cross-vendor models escape the zero-firing floor only with full-trajectory context, and even then reach only F1 0.17-0.40 at up to 90x the cost. Third, and most importantly, the supervised target is not reproducible among humans: three trained annotators using one rubric on a 56-action trajectory agree on where to intervene only slightly above chance (location Krippendorff's alpha = +0.047; best pairwise Cohen's kappa = +0.349) and not at all on intervention type (pause degenerate; clarify below chance; reflect only alpha = +0.226). We conclude that intervention timing is a low-reliability construct, making single-annotator F1 an unsuitable optimization target. Our contribution is the joint mapping of this problem across human inter-rater reliability, four detector architectures, a cross-model LLM-judge sweep, and a reproduced saturation effect, rather than any single detector's accuracy.

Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling. There the default validity test, correlating a metric to human judgment, has no stable anchor: inter-rater agreement is low, structured by annotator identity, barely reproducible, and length-biased. So we cannot answer the question that matters: does capability that scales on objective benchmarks transfer to subjective behavior, and would our instruments even tell us if it did not? We build an instrument for this regime and report what it reveals at the frontier. We contribute, first, a self-evolving instrument that selects and then authors its own behavioral dimensions under a multiplicative anti-gaming fitness, self-halting when it stops improving; second, a trust-by-construction paradigm that earns belief through three certificates established without a human gold standard, where human raters saturate (rho ~ 0.45); and third, the finding it makes visible -- capability transfer is dissociable. Across 49 models, 8 families, and 24 months, subjective behaviors are where objective-benchmark scaling fails to carry over: the sharpest case, advice-restraint (knowing when not to give advice), is the frontier's universal-lowest dimension, and at gpt-4.1->gpt-5 it ran backwards while the aggregate score hid it -- a regression one instruction recovers. Warm restraint is moved by model generation, not by raw scale, MoE width, inference budget, or reasoning mode; the open-weight Pareto frontier matches closed flagships at ~10-80x lower per-call cost; and four judge families replicate the rubric on held-out human ESConv conversations. Data, code, the locked rubric, and judge prompts will be released upon publication.

Large Language Model interfaces are increasingly verbose, exposing intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers. Traces are framed as transparency mechanisms, yet it is unclear how people use them to solve problems. We report a preregistered between-subjects study (N = 559) in which participants solved ten LSAT-style reasoning problems under one of three conditions: an Answer-only baseline, a Full-trace revealed before the answer, and a Summary-trace presented alongside the answer. Summaries preserved task performance at the no-trace baseline while significantly elevating trust and hedonic appeal, establishing that trace exposure shifts subjective appraisal of the interaction without bringing performance benefits. Under an open-weight reasoning model exposing verbose intermediate output, full traces additionally impaired performance relative to the answer-only baseline. Across all conditions, participants substantially overestimated their performance, and no trace format supported calibrated self-evaluation. Further analysis indicates that hedonic appeal, not trust, carries the indirect path to overestimation, consistent with a processing-fluency account. Reasoning traces are best understood as user-facing interface artifacts rather than transparent windows into model cognition, and calibration is unlikely to emerge from the traces themselves and may best be scaffolded by interactions that elicit users' own reasoning first.

Assurance arguments provide a clear and structured way to explain why stakeholders should trust that a system satisfies certain properties, yet widely used notations, e.g.Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), typically lack an operational semantics for deriving assurance confidence. Existing approaches address structure and soundness but largely reason over truth values, not over confidence in the justification of claims. Subjective Logic (SL) offers a calculus of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty with operators for combining opinions, enabling confidence propagation under incomplete, conflicting, or subjective evidence. However, existing SL-based approaches do not provide a uniform, compositional semantics that covers all argument elements and relations to enable overall confidence assessment. We propose a confidence semantics that represents argument elements as SL opinions and maps relations between elements to SL operators modelling how confidence flows, effectively turning the argument into an analyzable confidence network. The approach provides explicit warrants, principled handling of context, preserved provenance, and compatibility with GSN, along with practical guidance using an exemplary assurance confidence assessment.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges to evaluate the strength of arguments. As this role expands, their legitimacy depends on consistency, transparency, and the ability to separate argumentative structure from rhetorical appeal. However, we show that holistic judging - a common LLM-as-a-Judge practice where a model provides a global verdict on a debate - suffers from substantial inter-model disagreement. We argue that this instability arises from collapsing a debate's complex interaction structure into a single opaque score. To address this, we propose GRASP (Gradual Ranking with Attacks and Support Propagation), a deterministic framework that aggregates stable local interaction judgments into a global ranking via a convergent attack--defense propagation operator. We show that local interaction judgments are more reproducible than holistic rankings in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, allowing GRASP to produce more consistent global rankings. We further show that GRASP scores do not correlate with human "convincingness" labels, highlighting a vital sociotechnical distinction: GRASP does not measure persuasion, factuality, or rhetorical appeal, but structural sufficiency - a defense-aware notion of argument robustness over the explicit interaction graph. Overall, GRASP offers a transparent and auditable alternative to holistic LLM judging.

Despite extensive efforts on egocentric video datasets and benchmarks, understanding users' internal states, which is crucial for enabling seamless AI assistant experiences, remains largely overlooked. In this work, we introduce EgoIntrospect, the first egocentric dataset captured in user-driven scenarios with self-annotations that explicitly reveal users' interactive intentions with AI assistants. EgoIntrospect was collected using a cross-device setup, providing synchronized video, audio, gaze, motion, and physiological signals. It consists of 180 hours of recordings from 60 subjects, with an average recording duration of 3 hours per subject. Leveraging EgoIntrospect, we formalize a suite of tasks centered on user internal states, including affective experience, interactive intent, and cognitive memory. We further process the annotations to construct benchmarks that evaluate the ability of modern multimodal large language models to reason about users' internal states from egocentric observations. Experiments on our benchmark suggest that existing multimodal large language models struggle to effectively leverage multimodal signals to infer users' subjective internal states. The dataset and annotations will be made publicly available to advance research in egocentric vision and wearable AI assistants. Project page: https://ego-introspect.github.io/

Learning and representing the subjectivities of agents has become a challenging but crucial problem in the trajectory prediction task. Such subjectivities not only present specific spatial or temporal structures, but also are anisotropic for all interaction participants. Despite great efforts, it remains difficult to explicitly learn and forecast these subjectivities, let alone further modulate models' predictions through a specific ego's subjectivity. Inspired by prefactual thoughts in psychology and relevant theatrical concepts, we interpret such subjectivities in future trajectories as the continuous process from rehearsal to encore. In the rehearsal phase, the proposed ego predictor focuses on how each ego agent learns to derive and direct a set of explicitly biased rehearsal trajectories for all participants in the scene from the short-term observations. Then, these rehearsal trajectories serve as immediate controls to condition final predictions, providing direct yet distinct ego biases for the prediction network to simulate agents' various subjectivities. Experiments across datasets not only demonstrate a consistent improvement in the performance of the proposed \emph{Encore} trajectory prediction model but also provide clear interpretability regarding subjectivities as biased ego rehearsals.

Large language models for subjectivity analysis are typically trained with aggregated labels, which compress variations in human judgment into a single supervision signal. This paradigm overlooks the intrinsic uncertainty of low-agreement samples and often induces overconfident predictions, undermining reliability and generalization in complex subjective settings. In this work, we advocate uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis, where models are expected to make predictions while expressing uncertainty that reflects human disagreement. To operationalize this perspective, we propose a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment (DPUA) framework. Specifically, DPUA jointly models label prediction, rationale generation, and uncertainty expression under an uncertainty-aware setting. In the disagreement perception phase, adaptive decoupled learning enhances the model's sensitivity to disagreement-related cues while preserving task performance. In the uncertainty alignment phase, GRPO-based reward optimization further improves uncertainty-aware reasoning and aligns the model's confidence expression with the human disagreement distribution. Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks show that DPUA preserves task performance while better aligning model uncertainty with human disagreement, mitigating overconfidence on boundary samples, and improving out-of-distribution generalization.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on objective tasks such as video understanding and reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether they can approximate subjective human responses, which depend not only on content comprehension but also on individuals' social contexts. To address this gap, we evaluate MLLMs as synthetic participants in an emerging task: assessing perceived sensory engagement with short videos. Grounded in the Perceived Message Sensation Value (PMSV) framework, we compare ratings from recruited human participants and profile-conditioned MLLM simulations (n=673) using a 17-item scale measuring emotional arousal, dramatic impact, and novelty. We find that even leading MLLMs (Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen 3 Omni) show limited agreement with human participants. The models exhibit distinct downward mean-shift and central-tendency biases in their rating distributions. They both introduce and flatten subgroup differences, while showing inconsistent sensitivity to participant profiles. Prompting strategies affect these metrics differently, modestly improving some aspects while worsening others. These results highlight both the challenges and opportunities of developing MLLMs as synthetic participants in video-based research. Data and code: https://github.com/MINDLab25/mllm-human-simulation-eval

This paper presents our system developed for SemEval-2026 Task 2. The task requires modeling both current affect and short-term affective change in chronologically ordered user-generated texts. We explore three complementary approaches: (1) LLM prompting under user-aware and user-agnostic settings, (2) a pairwise Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) model with Ising-style interactions for structured transition modeling, and (3) a lightweight neural regression model incorporating recent affective trajectories and trainable user embeddings. Our findings indicate that LLMs effectively capture static affective signals from text, whereas short-term affective variation in this dataset is more strongly explained by recent numeric state trajectories than by textual semantics. Our system ranked first among participating teams in both Subtask 1 and Subtask 2A based on the official evaluation metric.

Subjective judgments are part of several NLP datasets and recent work is increasingly prioritizing models whose outputs reflect this diversity of perspectives. Such responses allow us to shed light on minority voices, which are frequently marginalized or obscured by dominant perspectives. It remains a question whether our evaluation practices align with these models' objectives. This position paper proposes seven evaluation desiderata for subjectivity-sensitive models, rooted in how subjectivity is represented in NLP data and models. The desiderata are constructed in a top-down approach, keeping in mind the user-centric impact of such models. We scan the experimental setup of 60 papers and show that various aspects of subjectivity are still understudied: the distinction between ambiguous and polyphonic input, whether subjectivity is effectively expressed to the user, and a lack of interplay between different desiderata, amongst other gaps.

Building NLP systems for subjective tasks requires one to ensure their alignment to contrasting human values. We propose the MultiCalibrated Subjective Task Learner framework (MC-STL), which clusters annotations into identifiable human value clusters by three approaches (similarity of annotator rationales, expert-value taxonomies or rater's sociocultural descriptors) and calibrates predictions for each value cluster by learning cluster-specific embeddings. We demonstrate MC-STL on several subjective learning settings, including ordinal, binary, and preference learning predictions, and evaluate it on multiple datasets covering toxic chatbot conversations, offensive social media posts, and human preference alignment. The results show that MC-STL consistently outperforms the baselines that ignore the latent value structure of the annotations, delivering gains in discrimination, value-specific calibration, and disagreement-aware metrics.

Where do objective functions come from? How do we select what goals to pursue? Human intelligence is adept at synthesizing new objective functions on the fly. How does this work, and can we endow artificial systems with the same ability? This paper proposes an approach to answering these questions, starting with the concept of a subjective function, a higher-order objective function that is endogenous to the agent (i.e., defined with respect to the agent's features, rather than an external task). Expected prediction error is studied as a concrete example of a subjective function. This proposal has many connections to ideas in psychology, neuroscience, and machine learning.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.