Transparency

As generative AI makes polished prose cheap to produce, users can no longer rely on fluency as a proxy for truth. We call this failure mode the Fluency Trap: users trust fluent hallucinations while also discounting accurate content once it is disclosed as AI-generated. Binary ``Made with AI'' labels respond with authorship disclosure, but they do not show what supports a claim. We propose Provenance Density, an evidence-visualization interface that shows the density of verified claims in a text. In a user study with 81 participants, an idealized Provenance Density interface produced a large discernment gap between truth and fabrication ($+4.15$ points, $d=1.82$), whereas participants given no signal showed no detectable discrimination. A technical audit with 200 samples shows that retrieval density alone is insufficient; unexpectedly, the Consistency Veto carries most of the discriminative signal on dynamic queries. As AI-generated content becomes indistinguishable from human writing, effective transparency must move from authorship disclosure toward evidence visualization.

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly enact market-facing promises through chatbots, recommendation systems, automated decisions, and generative interfaces. Their failures, misuse, and misrepresentation raise a question that conventional brand-crisis models do not fully specify: how do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system, developer, deployer, vendor, and user? This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources. It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal. The framework proposes that incident configuration shapes actor-specific attribution; attribution informs capability, integrity, fairness, and relationship appraisals; and public moralisation may, but need not, escalate an incident into scandal. The theory offers a reconciliation of findings that algorithm involvement can buffer negative brand reactions in some settings while robot and chatbot failures can redirect responsibility to an associated firm in others. It introduces accountable transparency as a proposed response configuration that combines timely notice, an intelligible account, role-responsibility acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse. The evidence supports conditional, proximal inferences about blame, trust, satisfaction, firm evaluation, and communication credibility more strongly than claims about durable reputation, brand equity, or market performance.

Privacy documents (e.g., privacy policies) are a central mechanism through which digital services disclose data practices and seek user consent. Over the past decades, research on privacy documents has expanded significantly, encompassing not only traditional privacy policies but also short notices (e.g., privacy labels) and interface-level transparency mechanisms. As this research area continues to grow, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain a coherent view of how privacy documents are created, analyzed, evaluated, and maintained across their lifecycle. This SoK provides a unified, lifecycle-oriented view of privacy documents from a software engineering perspective. We systematically review and analyze 290 papers published between 2010 and 2025, organizing them around five research questions that examine how privacy documents are (1) defined and scoped, (2) generated, (3) analyzed and extracted, (4) checked for inconsistencies and noncompliance, and (5) evaluated and improved for usability. Building on our findings, we identify 15 key research trends and 21 open opportunities. We further chart four broader research directions that highlight (i) emerging challenges in AI-centric platforms, (ii) the need for diverse and up-to-date data foundations, (iii) LLM-based unified policy-code analysis, and (iv) dual usability for end-users and developers. We hope this SoK provides a shared foundation for future research on privacy policies and privacy documents.

Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.

The growing role of AI-generated content and AI-enabled systems in public communication has led regulators to demand clear disclosure of content provenance and AI involvement. But the effects of such disclosures remain uncertain. We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI chatbot's persuasive appeal. In a preregistered experiment, 1,500 UK adults held a short conversation with a persuasive chatbot about one of 60 policy issues. The chatbot was identical for everyone. We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the chatbot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2). The chatbot shifted attitudes by 12.6 points on a 100-point scale in the control group. The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points. It also made participants view the campaign's methods as less acceptable and support stronger penalties against it. For direct chatbot interactions, transparency about AI identity alone does not meaningfully impact its influence. While current rules emphasize what a system is, our results show why the regulation of persuasive AI must also address what the system is trying to do.

The rapid spread of large language models (LLMs) across the web raises concerns about misinformation, academic integrity, automated content manipulation, and risks to vulnerable online communities. Existing transformer-based detectors, such as GPT-Sentinel, show promise but struggle to generalize to diverse model outputs and paraphrasing attacks, limiting their role in building trustworthy web ecosystems. This work introduces DeBERTa-Sentinel, a responsible AI-generated text detection framework leveraging DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention to capture subtle structural irregularities in synthetic content. A central design principle is transparency: unlike black-box commercial detectors, DeBERTa-Sentinel exposes token-level explanations of its decisions, enabling affected stakeholders journalists, educators, and platform trust and safety teams to audit, challenge, and contextualize detection outcomes. Using the GLC-AIText dataset of 28,057 human and LLM-generated samples (GPT, LLaMA, and Claude) with a 60-20-20 split, DeBERTa-Sentinel achieves 98.21% validation accuracy and surpasses the RoBERTa-Sentinel baseline from NeurIPS 2025, achieving 97.53% test accuracy, 95.89% precision, 99.33% recall, and 99.53% ROC-AUC, and maintaining a 0.665% false negative rate. The model's interpretability reveals linguistic markers such as academic phrasing and formal transitions associated with synthetic text, directly supporting stakeholder needs for verifiable, auditable content-authenticity decisions. By advancing responsible detection methods that reduce bias and enhance explainability, DeBERTa-Sentinel promotes trustworthy, ethical, and human-centric AI systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Galileo-Galili/HUMAN-VS-AI-TEXT-DETECTION.

Caption Studio is a transparency-first speech and audio intelligence platform that transforms spoken audio and video into structured, searchable content through automated transcription, speaker diarization, speech analytics, signal-level audio analysis, and subtitle generation. The system is built on a FastAPI backend with a real-time dashboard and adopts a three-layer architecture comprising (i) a transcription and diarization core based on Whisper-class automatic speech recognition and pyannote speaker diarization, (ii) an audio intelligence layer that extracts acoustic and linguistic features, including waveforms, spectrograms, pitch, speaking rate, silence, filler-word frequency, and sentiment, directly from the audio signal, and (iii) an integration layer that supports data export and downstream workflow integration. A principal contribution of this work is the transparency-first framework, in which every reported metric is explicitly identified as measured, derived, or unavailable, thereby improving the traceability, interpretability, and reliability of speech analytics. The paper presents the system architecture, benchmarking methodology, explainability and uncertainty framework, and key considerations for enterprise-scale deployment.

Automated analyses of privacy policies enable large-scale assessments of transparency in digital ecosystems, yet existing auditing pipelines remain predominantly English-centric. This limits their ability to systematically evaluate multilingual environments, as in the European Union, where many services disclose privacy practices only in local languages. This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) can extend privacy policy analysis beyond English without requiring language-specific adaptation, thus empowering large-scale auditing in linguistically diverse app ecosystems. We assemble an evaluation corpus spanning all 24 official EU languages from translated versions of two established expert-annotated datasets (OPP-115 and MAPP) and assess translation fidelity through automated metrics and targeted legal-expert review. Our LLM-based classifier for identifying categories of personal data collection achieves stable cross-lingual performance, with macro-F1 scores ranging between 0.91 and 0.94. We then leverage this capability in a large-scale audit of 2,611 Android applications from the Spanish Google Play Store. Combining multilingual privacy policy analysis with the evaluation of corresponding privacy labels and runtime network traffic exposes an important linguistic barrier: public-sector apps predominantly provide privacy policies in Spanish, whereas popular commercial apps mostly provide them in English. We reveal systematic discrepancies between declared and observed practices, especially in public-sector apps. Overall, our results indicate how English-only privacy audits can systematically obfuscate transparency gaps in multilingual environments.

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latter. AI-enabled systems are also being used to augment autonomy in systems, and autonomy coupled with opacity raises numerous concerns surrounding, e.g., the reliability of systems, their regularity in functioning, human ability to control them, or whether deploying opaque and potentially autonomous systems is in compliance with ethical and legal norms. In this article, we argue that many of these worries can be mitigated by leveraging practical judgment, virtue, and intuition in the deployment and use of opaque AI-enabled systems. We show that focusing on these distinctly human capabilities provides a means for bridging between the practical challenges created by opacity and the ethical, legal, and social norms underpinning particular domains. We argue that a core element in doing this is a recognition that many positive human traits are not quantifiable and we therefore must develop training regimen and guidelines on AI deployment anchored in humanistic but non-quantifiable values. Throughout the article, we focus on the military domain as an exemplar of the importance of practical judgment, virtue, and intuition as drivers for ethical and effective human decision-making surrounding AI deployments, but the underlying arguments apply to all domains where opaque and potentially autonomous systems are being deployed (subject to domain-specific alterations).

The adoption of non-parametric machine learning models for regulatory capital estimation introduces a fundamental governance challenge: the inability to explain model outputs in a manner auditable by supervisory bodies. This 'black box' problem remains a major barrier to the adoption of Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and related ML architectures in ICAAP and CCAR workflows despite their predictive advantages over traditional parametric approaches. This paper addresses this barrier through SHARC (SHAP for Regulatory Capital), an explainability framework for the Hybrid GPR-HS architecture and its stress-testing extension. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), derived from cooperative game theory and satisfying the properties of Local Accuracy, Missingness, Consistency, and Efficiency, are applied to Stressed Value-at-Risk (SVaR) outputs under three macro scenarios: West Asia War, Climate Risk, and AI Bubble/Regulatory Burden. SHARC decomposes SVaR into baseline, mean-driven, and volatility-driven components, enabling transparent linkage between scenario design and capital outcomes. Two findings emerge. First, SHARC consistently links non-linear SVaR outputs to underlying scenario inputs, confirming framework fidelity and providing auditable traceability of capital drivers. Second, under stress conditions, the mean return component (directional loss magnitude) dominates the variance component (volatility baseline) in determining capital levels, with implications for capital limit-setting, position management, and hedging strategy. The results establish SHARC as a regulator-aligned explainability layer that makes the Hybrid GPR-HS framework fully auditable and consistent with FRTB, ICAAP Pillar 2, and CCAR transparency requirements.

Public institutions increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to answer citizens' questions, often pairing a curated knowledge base with live web search, yet whether the sources behind these answers can be trusted has received little empirical scrutiny. We report a pre-launch expert evaluation of Evrópuvefur, an independent, government-funded service run by the University of Iceland that answers questions about the European Union, conducted as Iceland prepared for its referendum of 29 August 2026 on whether to resume EU accession talks. Five domain experts produced 551 evaluations of 449 AI-generated answers, scoring each against a seven-criterion quality rubric and, separately, flagging individual cited sources. We compared two retrieval paths: a curated local corpus (RAG) and open web search. In more than a third of the reviewed web-search answers (35%, 65 of 187), at least one cited source was flagged, almost always as untrustworthy or irrelevant; curated sources were flagged far less often and only for being out of date. Web search answered more questions, but at the cost of source quality; the curated corpus was trustworthy yet limited in coverage, and the model declined to respond when it fell short. The citation mix also passed over strong sources: across all 287 web-search answers, the system never cited RÚV, the public broadcaster and the country's most widely used news source. A companion prompt ablation shows how weak prompt-level steering is: a trusted-domain list in the system prompt raised the share of citations to listed domains only from 12% to 21%. Fluency and topical fit did not predict source trustworthiness. We argue that source trustworthiness is a measurable yet largely invisible dimension of information quality in public AI services, and we discuss transparency-oriented responses and their trade-offs.

Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output. This paper introduces ProvenAI, a framework that decomposes transparency in multi-hop question answering into three independently measurable layers: answer correctness, citation fidelity against benchmark supporting evidence, and per-document influence under leave-one-resource-out intervention. Targeting the HotpotQA distractor benchmark through a seven-stage pipeline covering data normalisation, retrieval indexing, citation-aware answer generation, attribution auditing, ablation-based influence estimation, batch evaluation, and interactive inspection, ProvenAI evaluates 7,405 validation examples drawn from a canonical corpus of 509,300 passages. The system achieves 53.53% answer accuracy alongside a mean citation-fidelity score of 71.55%, and a worked example surfaces what we call the citation-influence gap: a clean citation audit co-occurring with a profile in which one cited source registers only weak influence while seven uncited sources demonstrably shift the output. We formalise the relationship between the implemented surface proxy and a token-level KL-divergence target through a stated faithfulness condition, ground the framework in causal-mediation analysis and database-provenance theory, and discuss how the three measurement layers compose with cryptographic provenance architectures emerging in autonomous scientific discovery. ProvenAI establishes that meaningful transparency in retrieval-grounded QA requires traceable links across retrieved, cited, and behaviourally influential evidence as three distinct, independently measured layers.

We review the concepts of interpretability and explainability as they apply to machine learning in physics. We define interpretability as concerning the structural transparency of a model (the ability to understand or approximate its inner workings) and explainability as concerning the scientific content of a model (the ability to map it onto domain knowledge). We discuss the trade-offs each entails (interpretability vs. expressivity; explainability vs. adaptability), the contexts in which each is needed, and the intrinsic and post-hoc tools available for achieving them. Throughout, we emphasize that machine-learned models are subject to the same scientific questions as classical models, differing only in scale, and that interpretability and explainability are best understood as deliberate modeling choices rather than inherent properties. We also emphasize the importance of task specification and intervention plans as a core aspect of model design.

LLM reasoning transparency is a critical affordance for understanding model decisions, mitigating misuse and misalignment, and debugging surprising model behaviors. However, DiffusionGemma performs a larger fraction of its computation in a continuous latent space; does this make its reasoning less transparent? We study this question by decomposing transparency into two components: variable transparency, whether we understand intermediate snapshots of a model's computational state; and algorithmic transparency, whether we can use these snapshots to reconstruct the process by which the model arrived at its outputs. Naively, DiffusionGemma has poor variable transparency: its opaque serial depth, the amount of serial computation that occurs in between interpretable model states, seems at first 28.6X higher than the corresponding autoregressive Gemma 4 model. However, we show that we can map the information flowing between denoising steps through an interpretable token bottleneck with no decrease in downstream performance. Treating these intermediate states as interpretable reduces the opaque serial depth to just 1.1X that of Gemma 4. Algorithmic transparency is harder for diffusion models than for autoregressive models because all token predictions in the canvas can change at every denoising step, giving the model the power to implement complicated distributed algorithms during the denoising process. To begin bridging this gap, we conduct a suite of interpretability case studies, uncovering initial evidence of novel diffusion-specific phenomena such as non-chronological reasoning, token and sequence smearing, and intermediate-context reasoning. Finally, we test monitorability, a key application of transparency that measures whether model outputs are useful for downstream tasks. We find that DiffusionGemma is similarly monitorable to Gemma 4.

Monotonicity has been a long-running architectural inductive bias for neural networks, motivated by tabular, scientific, and economic settings where outputs are known to respond monotonically to certain inputs. Existing approaches are MLP- or flow-based and lack per-edge functional transparency; the only Kolmogorov--Arnold Network (KAN) variant with monotonicity, MonoKAN, enforces the constraint only on a restricted parameter subset and requires a projection-style training procedure. We close this gap with \textbf{MKAN}, a KAN with hard monotonicity guaranteed for \emph{all} parameter values via exponential reparameterization of B-spline coefficients, positive edge weights, and a monotone base activation. Training reduces to standard unconstrained gradient descent. Our headline theoretical contribution is a \emph{representation-cost} theorem: any $C^K, K >0$ feature extractor inducing a ball-shaped semantic-neighborhood partition admits a monotone realization of the equivalent neighborhood structure at $N' = N^* + k \le 2N^*$, where $k$ is the number of non-monotone coordinates of the original. The bound is architecture-agnostic and gives a principled sizing rule for monotone encoders. Empirically, MKAN is competitive with state-of-the-art monotone NNs on the SMM/ICML-2024 benchmark while being the only method that combines hard unconstrained monotonicity with KAN's per-edge functional transparency; the $2N^*$ prediction is validated in a self-supervised feature-size sweep on four real datasets, and on a controlled monotone-generative dataset MKAN recovers ground-truth factors with substantially higher Spearman alignment than KAN, MLP, and linear baselines.

Transparency is increasingly mandated for public-sector AI systems, with organisations required to publish statements describing their AI use and oversight arrangements. However, the existence of such artefacts is often treated as equivalent to transparency itself, despite limited evidence that they proportionately serve relevant stakeholder groups. From a requirements engineering perspective, this raises a validation concern: compliance with mandated disclosure criteria does not necessarily ensure transparency adequacy for stakeholders with different levels of risk exposure, decision control, and involvement. This paper presents an empirical analysis of 92 publicly available AI transparency statements published by Australian Government agencies under the national AI governance mandate. We introduce the stakeholder Risk--Control--Involvement--Need (RCIN) framework to differentiate stakeholder classes according to their structural position and transparency needs. Using a structured rubric derived from the mandated criteria, we evaluate how both the mandate and published statements are calibrated to each stakeholder class. The findings show that while structural compliance is widespread, transparency calibration is uneven. Criteria serving high-control stakeholders are consistently realised, whereas criteria most critical for high-risk, low-control stakeholders are fewer and less substantively addressed. We conceptualise this as the Transparency Illusion: a condition in which transparency appears satisfied through compliant artefacts yet remains unevenly calibrated to stakeholders bearing the greatest exposure to AI-supported decisions. The study frames transparency as a stakeholder-calibrated validation problem, demonstrating that artefact-level compliance does not constitute requirements validation in this context.

As organizations increasingly deploy generative AI agents to automate business processes, they face a governance dilemma: although these agents can increase operational flexibility, their non-deterministic nature challenges the control and standardization that Business Process Management seeks to enforce. This paper addresses this \emph{invisible autonomy risk} by introducing \emph{Agent Behavior Mining}, a governance capability that enables the application of process mining techniques to render generative AI agent decision-making observable and traceable. We (1) improve the understanding of generative AI agent behavior through an event data model that translates granular agent activities -- including reasoning traces, tool usage, and token costs -- into standardized process logs; (2) instantiate the data model in a multi-agent order-to-cash implementation, demonstrating how process managers can leverage agent logs to detect policy deviations and quantify operational variability; and (3) evaluate the perceived practical utility of the approach in an exploratory study with 18 industry practitioners. The results indicate that practitioners view behavioral transparency as a prerequisite for trust and consider the ability to examine agent reasoning as an important governance requirement for the next generation of AI-driven business processes.

In this paper, we evaluate the extent of undisclosed LLM-generated content in texts from the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. In many areas, such as in journalism or in academic writing, there are often requirements to clearly disclose whether AI tools, such as LLMs, have been used. In the case of parliamentary texts, the guidelines on disclosure of AI use are more vague. However, in order to maintain transparency and retain public trust, it is generally recommended that parliamentarians should state whether or not they have used AI when writing texts, such as parliamentary motions. Here, we train an interpretable (glass-box) text classifier using pre-LLM parliamentary texts and LLM-generated versions of such texts. We then apply the classifier to a test set containing recent parliamentary texts, finding a steady increase in undisclosed LLM use, in both parliaments, from 2022 onwards.

As newsrooms integrate generative AI, journalists face a disclosure challenge: how to communicate AI involvement in ways that maintain reader trust. Current practice offers two approaches: brief one-line labels or detailed disclosures specifying human oversight, editorial accountability, and error reporting mechanisms. Neither achieves journalists' goal of building trust through transparency. An existing controlled experiment with 34 news readers show that detailed disclosures trigger a \textit{transparency dilemma}, reducing trust rather than increasing it, and risk introducing dark patterns that readers scroll past with the illusion of transparency. One-line disclosures avoid this effect but can create an information gap, prompting readers to expend cognitive effort searching for signs of AI involvement that the disclosure indicates but does not explain. Yet readers are not rejecting transparency, they proposed disclosure designs centered on user agency: detail-on-demand interactions, proportional AI-ratio visualizations, outlet-level signals, and explicit "no AI" labels. I argue that this disconnect between what practitioners believe is responsible disclosure and what users actually need is a design problem for the HCI community.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems are rapidly emerging, yet transparency, a cornerstone of responsible AI, remains under-defined in these distributed architectures, which have complexities of inter-agent coordination and orchestration. In this paper, we present one of the first empirical study of how early adopters of multi-agent LLM systems, who are both the builders and users, understand and practice transparency. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 early adopters in [Large Technology Organization] and applied thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns. Participants articulated divergent yet complementary framings of transparency, including reproducibility, debugging, boundary-setting, visualization, and auditing. These perspectives spanned questions of what transparency entails, why it matters, and how it is achieved. We synthesize these into a multidimensional framework, which is developer, user, and governance-focused positioning transparency as a situated socio-technical practice that informs future HCI and AI design and research around aligning expectations and capacities of their intended audiences.

Assistive robots operating under shared autonomy must balance user control with autonomous assistance. Because robot actions depend on internal intent inference that is not directly observable, mismatches between inferred and intended goals can undermine coordination and trust. We investigate how interface-level transparency, including feedback modality (visual vs. auditory) and information richness (sparse vs. rich), shapes interaction in a vision-based shared autonomy system. In a user study with N=25 participants across two assistive manipulation tasks, we evaluate how these designs influence coordination and trust. Providing feedback significantly improves intent alignment and reduces corrective intervention, indicating that making the inferred goal legible accelerates convergence in shared control. Participants preferred visual over auditory feedback, while preferences for sparse versus rich information depended on task complexity. We also found that revealing the full belief distribution did not consistently improve alignment or trust. Together, these findings indicate that effective transparency enhances coordination primarily through goal legibility, while trust depends on task-appropriate information exposure rather than maximal disclosure. Based on these results, we outline guidelines for designing transparent shared autonomy systems.

We present a systematic study of domain-dependent safety behavior in open-weight LLMs: 7 standardized experiments across 7 ethical domains, testing 5 models (12B--70B) in 4,200 interactions with dual-judge validation. Using a dual-condition methodology, each scenario tested in both an analytical framing (identify the harm) and an operational framing (help commit the harm), we find compliance rates vary from 14.7% (human trafficking) to 85.7% (surveillance design), a 71-percentage-point span with non-overlapping cluster-bootstrapped 95% CIs. Trustworthy deployment requires predictable safety behavior, yet we find compliance is highly context-dependent: the same model (Mistral Nemo 12B) provides surveillance designs in 100% of requests but assists with trafficking in only 26.7%. This unpredictability is opaque to deployers: the technical framing bypass, where harmful requests reframed as engineering problems override safety training without any external signal that refusal thresholds have shifted. Within-domain heterogeneity reaches 84.4pp, meaning safety behavior cannot be predicted even at the domain level. A replication on five frontier closed models (GPT-4.1/5.2, Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus 4.x; n=4,163 responses) accessed via the GitHub Copilot CLI deployed-product surface reproduces the same domain stratification, attenuated in absolute level but identical in shape, with the two low-codification domains (science fraud, surveillance) again the most permissive. These results show that current safety mechanisms lack the transparency and consistency required for trustworthy AI deployment.

Assessing whether Large Language Models outputs are factually grounded, epistemically calibrated, and methodologically reproducible is a prerequisite for responsible AI deployment. Yet auditing LLMs remains inaccessible to non-technical practitioners: existing tools require programming expertise and non-trivial environment setup, and cloud-hosted platforms transmit evaluation data to external services, creating barriers for domain experts and compliance officers legally responsible for AI oversight. We introduce LLM-FACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture, structured around three practitioner profiles (technical experts, domain experts, compliance officers) that mirror the stakeholder categories identified in the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The architecture makes data flows explicit: deterministic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore) run entirely within the self-hosted server with no outbound transmission; LLM-judge metrics contact external APIs explicitly, with users retaining full credential control. The framework operationalizes transparency through three mechanisms: token-level log-probability visualization for epistemic uncertainty, multi-judge consensus to mitigate judge bias, and RAG Triad metrics (Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Relevance) to detect and localize hallucinations. A plugin architecture allows any new metric or dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline. The open-source implementation enables cross-checking across multiple metrics targeting the same property, ensuring reproducibility and decoupling AI accountability from the teams building the systems assessed. We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.

Recent advances in text-to-music generation enable high-fidelity synthesis of structured musical audio, raising growing concerns about data provenance, consent, and training transparency. These models are typically trained on large-scale corpora with little disclosure, leaving no practical mechanism to verify whether a particular audio sample was included in training. In this paper, we investigate black-box membership inference for generative music models, aiming to determine whether a candidate music sample was used during training, given only query access to the deployed system. Our key insight is that training membership induces systematically stronger semantic and structural alignment between a candidate sample and the model's generation conditioned on its caption. We query the target model with the associated caption and measure the relationship between the candidate audio and the generated output in a learned feature space. To capture features that separate members from non-members, we construct paired examples consisting of each track and its caption-conditioned generation from shadow models, and train a music auditor to classify membership. The auditor captures alignment patterns characteristic of training membership and generalizes to unseen target models in a fully black-box setting without access to model parameters or training metadata. Across multiple state-of-the-art music generators, our method achieves up to 98.6% accuracy, with false-positive and false-negative rates as low as 1.9% and 1.0%, demonstrating that reliable training-data auditing is feasible in realistic deployment scenarios.

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 widespread deployment of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models has raised serious concerns about the proliferation of AI-generated content. This has led to a surge of interest in, and demand for, reliable tracking and detection mechanisms for content that is AI-generated, such as watermarking, metadata tagging, content tagging, and more. The problem has captured the attention of policymakers as well as the popular media, and a spate of recent bills in the US have sought to regulate the spread of AI content, and enforce or promote methods to track and label it. This work performs a critical analysis of the policy discourse surrounding generative AI content transparency in the US and EU. Through a broad document selection methodology, we first collect a broad corpus of documents containing legislative language and policy-relevant discourse on the topic. We then analyze these through inductive coding, and leverage our coding to systematize these documents, identifying key patterns, gaps, and open questions. We identify critical points of disconnect between policy and technological capabilities and practice, and we highlight and discuss potential ambiguities and pitfalls raised by the trends in our corpus.

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.

AI deployment in sensitive domains such as health care, credit, employment, and criminal justice is often treated as unsafe to authorize until model internals can be explained. This often leads to an excessive reliance on mechanistic interpretability to address a deployment challenge beyond its intended scope. We argue that the gate should instead be calibrated verification: authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable. The reason is twofold. First, model capability is uneven across nearby tasks, so authorization must attach to a specific use rather than to a model in general. Second, societies have long governed opaque expertise through credentials, monitoring, liability, appeal, and revocation rather than mechanism-level explanation. Recent evidence reinforces this distinction between mechanistic understanding and deployment authority: a 53-percentage-point gap between internal representations and output correction shows that understanding may not translate into action, while one scoping review found that only 9.0% of FDA-approved AI/ML device documents contained a prospective post-market surveillance study. We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) achieve high performance but can be opaque to humans, making it difficult to understand and compare the many proposed architectures. While existing explainability methods attribute individual predictions to nodes, edges, or features, they do not provide architectural transparency or explain the fundamental performance gap between simple and more complex models. To address this limitation, we introduce Model-to-Data (M2D) distillation, a new framework that increases transparency by transferring model complexity into the data space. M2D distills the teacher model into an augmented graph with enriched features and structure, enabling a simple student to match the teacher's performance. By materializing model behavior in the data, our approach allows humans to inspect architectural advantages directly. We show that M2D reveals underlying mechanisms such as fairness objectives and attention-based aggregation in an interpretable way, enhancing GNN transparency while preserving performance.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.

Frontier AI safety claims - published assertions that a highly capable general-purpose model is below a threshold of concern, adequately mitigated, or suitable for release - increasingly shape model deployment, governance, and public trust. Yet the artefacts needed to evaluate them are routinely withheld, producing an evidential inversion: the most consequential claims in AI safety are often the least reproducible. This position paper argues that NeurIPS should require reproducibility standards for papers making such claims, treating non-reproducibility not as a transparency preference but as an evaluation-methodology failure. The 2026 International AI Safety Report [Bengio et al., 2026] concludes that reliable pre-deployment safety testing has become harder to conduct and that models now distinguish test from deployment contexts; the 2025 Foundation Model Transparency Index [Wan et al., 2025] reports a sector-average transparency score of 40/100 with no major developer adequately disclosing train-test overlap; contemporaneous measurement-theory work shows that attack-success-rate comparisons across systems are often founded on low-validity measurements [Chouldechova et al., 2025]. We propose a three-tier disclosure framework, distinguishing public, controlled, and claim-restricted disclosure, paired with a mandatory claim inventory, scope statements, and a phased implementation path with graduated sanctions. The framework treats secrecy and openness as endpoints of a spectrum, with controlled review (via a federated colloquium of qualified secure-review hosts) covering claims whose artefacts cannot be released publicly, and right-scaling claims whose artefacts cannot be reviewed even confidentially. The standard the community applies to its most consequential claims should be at least as high as the standard it applies to its least.

We present a machine-checked formalization of structurally governed AI workflow architectures and prove that effect-level governance can be imposed without reducing internal computational expressivity. Using Interaction Trees in Rocq 8.19, we define a governance operator G that mediates all effectful directives, including memory access, external calls, and oracle (LLM) queries. Our development compiles with 0 admitted lemmas and consists of 36 modules, ~12,000 lines of Rocq, and 454 theorems. We establishseven properties: (P1) governed Turing completeness, (P2) governed oracle expressivity, (P3) a decidability boundary in which governance predicates are total and closed under Boolean composition while semantic program properties remain non-trivial and undecidable by governance, (P4) goal preservation for permitted executions, (P5) expressive minimality of primitive capabilities (compute, memory, reasoning, external call, observability), (P6) subsumption asymmetry showing structural governance strictly subsumes content-level filtering, and (P7) semantic transparency: on all executions where governance permits, the governed interpretation is observationally equivalent (modulo governance-only events) to the ungoverned interpretation. Together, these results show that governance and computational expressivity are orthogonal dimensions: governance constrains the effect boundary of programs while remaining semantically transparent to internal computation.

Machine learning models embedded in deployed AI systems are routinely updated to maintain correct functioning over time. Yet such updates can generate update opacity: users may not be able to understand why the same input now yields a different output. We argue that update opacity is best understood as a diachronic failure of epistemic accessibility: the problem is that materially relevant changes may fail to remain accessible to human users in forms that support understanding, calibrated reliance, and appropriate action under real role- and time-specific constraints. This makes update opacity a governance problem. Not all change is equally relevant, and disclosing every update would itself undermine use through overload. To address this problem, we combine two complementary governance approaches: the EU AI Act, which helps specify the system-level perimeter of normatively relevant change, and Machine Learning Operations, which provides operational tools for tracking and comparing change over time. On this basis, we propose a framework that models system change through trustworthiness profiles and trustworthiness levels, and uses threshold-based disclosure to surface materially relevant within-envelope change to different stakeholders over time. We illustrate the approach with a medical AI example and derive practical implications for lifecycle documentation, post-market monitoring, and update disclosure.

Existing research typically treats privacy policies as flat, uniform text, extracting information without regard for the document's logical hierarchy. Disregard for structural cues of section headings designed to guide the reader, often leads automated methods to entangle distinct data practices, particularly when linking sensitive data items to their specific purposes. To address this, we introduce PrivSTRUCT, a novel and systematic encoder and decoder combined framework that to untangle complex privacy disclosures. Benchmarking against the state-of-the-art tool PoliGrapher reveals that PrivSTRUCT robustly extracts more than x2 the number of data item and purpose excerpts while retaining developer-defined structural cues. By applying PrivSTRUCT to a large-scale dataset of 3,756 Android apps, we uncover a critical transparency gap: the probability of developers overstating a data purpose is 20.4% higher for first-party collection and 9.7% higher for third-party sharing when they rely on globally defined purposes rather than specific, locally scoped disclosures. Alarmingly, we find that sensitive third-party data flows such as sharing financial data for analytics are frequently diluted and entangled into generic or unrelated categories, highlighting a persistent failure in the current purpose disclosure landscape.

Third-party Large Language Model (LLM) API gateways are rapidly emerging as unified access points to models offered by multiple vendors. However, the internal routing, caching, and billing policies of these gateways are largely undisclosed, leaving users with limited visibility into whether requests are served by the advertised models, whether responses remain faithful to upstream APIs, or whether invoices accurately reflect public pricing policies. To address this gap, we introduce GateScope, a lightweight black-box measurement framework for evaluating behavioral consistency and operational transparency in commercial LLM gateways. GateScope is designed to detect key misbehaviors, including model downgrading or switching, silent truncation, billing inaccuracies, and instability in latency by auditing gateways along four critical dimensions: response content analysis, multi-turn conversation performance, billing accuracy, and latency characteristics. Our measurements across 10 real-world commercial LLM API gateways reveal frequent gaps between expected and actual behaviors, including silent model substitutions, degraded memory retention, deviations from announced pricing, and substantial variation in latency stability across platforms.

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.

Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) for 5G networks must handle complex, high-volume traffic. Although opaque "black-box" models can achieve high accuracy, their lack of transparency hinders trust and effective operational response. We propose ExAI5G, a framework that prioritizes interpretability by integrating a Transformer-based deep learning IDS with logic-based explainable AI (XAI) techniques. The framework uses Integrated Gradients to attribute feature importance and extracts a surrogate decision tree to derive logical rules. We introduce a novel evaluation methodology for LLM-generated explanations, using a powerful evaluator LLM to assess actionability and measuring their semantic similarity and faithfulness. On a 5G IoT intrusion dataset, our system achieves 99.9% accuracy and a 0.854 macro F1-score, demonstrating strong performance. More importantly, we extract 16 logical rules with 99.7% fidelity, making the model's reasoning transparent. The evaluation demonstrates that modern LLMs can generate explanations that are both faithful and actionable, indicating that it is possible to build a trustworthy and effective IDS without compromising performance for the sake of marginal gains from an opaque model.

Users increasingly rely on consumer-facing generative AI (GenAI) for tasks ranging from everyday needs to sensitive use cases. Yet, it remains unclear whether and how existing security and privacy (S&P) communications in GenAI tools shape users' adoption decisions and experiences. Understanding how users seek, interpret, and evaluate S&P information is critical for designing usable transparency that users can trust and act on. We conducted semi-structured interviews and design sessions with 21 U.S. GenAI users. Our findings suggest that available S&P information rarely drove initial adoption in practice, as participants often perceived it as incomplete, ineffective, or not credible. Instead, they relied on rough proxies (e.g., popularity) to infer S&P practices. After adoption, S&P uncertainty constrained participants' willingness to use GenAI tools, especially for high-stakes purposes, and, in some cases, contributed to discontinued use. Participants therefore called for transparency that supports decisions and actions through trustworthy information (e.g., independent evaluations) and usable interfaces (e.g., on-demand disclosure). We categorize participants' desired design practices into five dimensions to facilitate systematic future investigation into best practices. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve S&P transparency in consumer-facing GenAI.

As a relatively new forum, ACM FAccT has become a key space for activists and scholars to critically examine emerging AI and ML technologies. It brings together academics, civil society members, and government representatives from diverse fields to explore the broader societal impacts of both deployed and proposed technologies. We report a large-scale participatory design (PD) process for reflexive conference governance, which combined an in-person CRAFT session, an asynchronous Polis poll and the synthesis of a governance-facing report for the FAccT leadership. Participants shaped the substantive agenda by authoring seed statements, adding new statements and making patterns of agreement, disagreement and uncertainty made visible through voting.Our endeavors represent one of the the first instances of applying PD to a venue that critically interrogates the societal impacts of AI, fostering a niche in which critical scholars are free to voice their concerns. Finally, this work advances large-scale PD theory by providing an effective case study of a co-design paradigm that can readily scale temporally and epistemologically.

In November 2025, the Government of Canada operationalized its commitment to transparency by releasing its first Federal AI Register. In this paper, we argue that such registers are not neutral mirrors of government activity, but active instruments of ontological design that configure the boundaries of accountability. We analyzed the Register's complete dataset of 409 systems using the Algorithmic Decision-Making Adapted for the Public Sector (ADMAPS) framework, combining quantitative mapping with deductive qualitative coding. Our findings reveal a sharp divergence between the rhetoric of "sovereign AI" and the reality of bureaucratic practice: while 86% of systems are deployed internally for efficiency, the Register systematically obscures the human discretion, training, and uncertainty management required to operate them. By privileging technical descriptions over sociotechnical context, the Register constructs an ontology of AI as "reliable tooling" rather than "contestable decision-making." We conclude that without a shift in design, such transparency artifacts risk automating accountability into a performative compliance exercise, offering visibility without contestability.

Healthcare disparities persist across socioeconomic boundaries, often attributed to unequal access to screening, diagnostics, and therapeutics. However, this perspective highlights that critical biases can emerge much earlier, during data collection and research prioritization, long before clinical implementation, particularly in studies focused on molecular and omics data. A vast number of studies focus on collecting omics data, but the demographic information associated with these datasets is often not reported, and when it is reported, it reveals substantial biases. An automated analysis of 4514 PubMed-indexed omics publications from 2015 to 2024, examining reporting across multiple demographic dimensions, reveals limited reporting overall; for example, only 2.7% of studies report ancestry or ethnicity information and geographic origin reporting is limited to 2.5%. Analysis of large-scale datasets commonly used for model training, such as CellxGene and GEO, reveals substantial population bias where European-ancestry data dominates. As biomedical foundation models become central to biomedical discovery with a paradigm in which base models are pretrained on large datasets and reusing them repeatedly for many different downstream tasks, they risk perpetuating or amplifying these early-stage biases, leading to cascading inequities that regulatory interventions cannot fully reverse. We propose a community-wide focus on three foundational principles: Provenance, Openness, and Reliability through Evaluation Transparency. Together, these principles can help make biases and limitations more visible to model developers and users, supporting more informed model development, evaluation, and deployment decisions in biomedical AI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in tool-driven environments such as healthcare analytics, financial systems, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and multi-agent workflows. Although the Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes how LLM applications expose and invoke external tools, its baseline model does not require tool-use manifests to be cryptographically authenticated, freshness-checked, policy-bound, or independently auditable before execution. As a result, MCP pipelines may remain vulnerable to manifest tampering, unauthorized tool invocation, replay of stale requests, and weak accountability. This paper presents a manifest-level enforcement layer for MCP-based LLM pipelines. It treats each MCP tool-use manifest as a first-class security object whose canonical form must be policy-validated, freshness-checked, digitally signed, verified before execution, and linked to tamper-evident audit evidence. The framework binds tool invocation to verifiable manifest integrity and fail-closed authorization, separates user-visible request parameters from execution metadata, rejects non-compliant or stale manifests before execution, and records accepted invocations in a Merkle-based transparency log. Evaluation across GPT-5.3, LLaMA-3.5, and DeepSeek-V3 using up to 50,000 manifest instances shows near-linear scalability (R^2 = 0.998), bounded verification latency (<= 9.4 ms on edge devices), and rejection of expired, malformed, replayed, and policy-violating manifests, with rejection rates above 98.7%. Experiments in healthcare, finance, RAG, and multi-agent settings show that manifest-level cryptographic enforcement enables low-overhead, traceable, and auditable execution control for heterogeneous LLM-tool pipelines.

Existing AI disclosure mandates in scholarship require that AI assistance be reported but leave transparency philosophically unspecified: they fix the duty without explaining what the duty serves. We argue that ethical inquiry is essentially contested at two independent levels -- about what it is, and about what it demands of the inquirer -- defeating output-only evaluation and welfare-economic dismissal of the transparency question, and, by extension, reproducibility framings imported from the empirical sciences. The transparency duty is grounded instead in agent-integrity: the legibility, before a community of inquiry, of the identity-constituting commitments that the author's mode of philosophising expresses. Because the standards for evaluating such work are not communally settled, the achievable goal for transparency is not evaluation against agreed criteria but tracking -- accumulating the evidentiary record that lets each tradition assess the work on its own terms and makes future normative judgments possible. We develop a documentation-adequacy framework that operationalises Meaningful Human Control through five transparency elements -- declaration, navigation, documentation account, process documentation, and development records -- demonstrated by the paper itself, whose full documentation record is archived at a persistent identifier. The framework is a first iteration subject to revision, not a settled standard.

This paper presents an immersive bilateral teleoperation framework for beyond-human-scale manipulators, combining motion/force transparency with enhanced operator embodiment through virtual reality (VR) and distributed haptic feedback. The platform integrates a full-scale industrial hydraulic manipulator, a 7-DoF haptic exoskeleton, and head-tracked visual feedback to reinforce operator agency and self-location. A force-sensorless adaptive controller incorporates an augmented human-robot dynamic model to address master-surrogate asymmetries, input nonlinearities, model uncertainties, and communication delays. Rigorous analysis establishes semi-global uniform ultimate boundedness of the closed-loop system. Extensive full-scale experiments demonstrate precise motion and force tracking with scaling up to 1:13 and 1:1000, respectively, and fixed or time-varying delays up to 150 ms. Coordinated 6-DoF pick-and-place and multi-axis contact tasks further validate system performance. A ten-participant user study supports system usability and indicates approximately 50% higher normalized embodiment scores with VR than with monitor-based feedback. These results advance intuitive, force-reflected remote manipulation at industrial scale.