Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed artificial intelligence from primarily generative systems into increasingly capable reasoning agents. Recent advances in theorem proving, autoformalization, symbolic reasoning, and tool-augmented language models demonstrate substantial progress toward machine-assisted formal reasoning. However, current reasoning systems still suffer from hidden logical inconsistencies, hallucinated symbolic transitions, unsupported theorem applications, and limited reliability guarantees. Existing approaches remain fragmented across formal verification, runtime assurance, neuro-symbolic reasoning and trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) research communities. This paper introduces ReasonOps, a unified operational paradigm for trustworthy verified reasoning systems. Inspired by operational ecosystems such as DevOps and MLOps, ReasonOps treats reasoning as a continuously monitored, verifiable, reliability-aware operational process rather than an isolated inference task. The proposed paradigm integrates semantic interpretation, autoformalization, symbolic reasoning, theorem proving, runtime assurance, probabilistic reliability estimation, and adaptive correction into a unified reasoning lifecycle. The paper further presents the ReasonOps architecture, demonstrates its workflow using an autonomous braking system analysis example, and discusses its potential role in future safety-critical autonomous AI systems. We argue that operational reasoning paradigms such as ReasonOps may become foundational infrastructure for next-generation trustworthy AI ecosystems.

Legal reasoning requires distinguishing changes that matter from those that do not. Legal AI should remain stable under legally irrelevant perturbations, but should change when perturbations alter legally material points. We formulate this requirement as a legal-relevance-sensitive evaluation problem: LLMs should only be sensitive to the legally relevant change. We introduce a unified evaluation suite covering should-change and should-not-change evaluation across judicial fairness, robustness, and statute-confusion scenarios. Our evaluation shows that existing legal LLMs are systematically sensitive to legally irrelevant variations and often fail to distinguish related legal elements and statutory rules. To mitigate these failures, we present LexGuard, an adversarial multi-agent framework grounded in formal reasoning. LexGuard formalizes statutes into executable constraints, uses adversarial agents to extract competing fact-statute arguments, and invokes SMT solvers to verify legal satisfaction and logical consistency. Experiments show that LexGuard improves legal reasoning reliability by reducing vulnerability to manipulative framing, improving disambiguation among similar statutes, limiting the influence of legally irrelevant attributes, and increasing consistency under benign reformulations. We show that legal trustworthiness requires not only accuracy, but calibrated sensitivity to legally material changes.

Large language models are widely deployed in high-stakes NLP tasks, yet risks such as bias, hallucination, adversarial vulnerability and unreliable generalization remain. Probe-based auditing reveals inconsistencies in model behavior. Adversarial text generation uncovers robustness gaps, especially in lower-resourced languages with limited benchmarks. Enterprise text-to-SQL settings expose the difficulty of validating outputs over private and large-scale databases. Human supervision is essential for probe validation, adversarial verification and domain-specific annotation, but it is costly and hard to scale. This survey examines recent human-in-the-loop methods that shift NLP from automation toward collaboration for safety and trustworthiness. We review how human expertise supports auditing, robustness evaluation, data construction and model steering. Our findings highlight gaps in scalable probing, sustainable robustness benchmarks, low-resource settings and governance of private systems. We outline practical research directions for adaptive auditing, collaborative evaluation and accountable deployment.

Modern Artificial Intelligence achieves remarkable predictive power by optimizing statistical risk functionals over vast corpora. Yet a gap separates this from genuine intelligence: the inability to distinguish correlation from causation. This paper argues that causal inference (identifying mechanisms invariant under intervention) is AI's indispensable statistical conscience. Without causal grounding, AI systems are correlation machines: powerful in familiar domains, brittle under distribution shift, and biased in high-stakes settings. Three contributions develop this argument. First, a Statistical Necessity Theorem for Causal Generalization: any algorithm achieving out-of-distribution generalization must encode causal structure, formalizing the distinction between prediction P(Y|X) and intelligence P(Y|do(X)). Second, a unified framework connects Pearl's do-calculus, the Potential Outcomes framework, Double Machine Learning, and Invariant Risk Minimization as a family of Causal Statistical Estimators, each identifying interventional distributions under different assumptions. Third, three AI failure modes (hallucination in large language models, reward hacking in reinforcement learning from human feedback, and degradation under distribution shift) are manifestations of causal blindness, each admitting a principled statistical remedy. Trustworthy AI is, at its core, a problem of causal statistics. The statistical community is not merely equipped to solve it -- it is the only community with the foundational tools to do so rigorously.

Large language models now write software, draft legal documents, and produce clinical notes, yet fundamental limits, from Turing and Arrow to the No Free Lunch theorems, shape what computation can do. This thesis turns such impossibility results from curiosities into design rules. Its flagship result proves an accuracy ceiling set by architecture alone: past a critical reasoning depth, no amount of training moves it, at any adapter rank, sample size, or loss function. Computable before deployment from layer count and embedding width, this Deterministic Horizon is measured between nineteen and thirty-one across twelve transformer architectures, and fine-tuning on optimal-length traces recovers under four percentage points. The mechanism is a capacity invariant of the residual stream, and an information-theoretic conversion yields super-exponential accuracy decay past the horizon. An unconditional circuit-complexity lower bound for modular exponentiation against constant-depth prime-modulus circuits complements this result. The same argument recasts across subfields: preference learning under any misspecified model jumps discontinuously in sample complexity; multi-stage retrieval pipelines require at least as many independent metrics as stages; standard truthful auctions fail for agents with prompt-dependent valuations; and zero-knowledge verification of neural inference pays a measured overhead of one hundred ten to one hundred ninety times per non-linear activation. Together these form a catalogue of sixteen specifications, each pairing a computable boundary, a quantified violation cost, and a constructive design rule: two compositions are proved, one pairing is an honest obstruction, and four remain open. The impossibility-specification methodology is offered for the generative research programme that trustworthy AI may need. Every fundamental limit of AI is also a design rule.

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for health information, yet its influence on users' trust calibration remains unclear. Objective: This study examines whether learned dependency on GenAI influences trust in AI-generated health information and whether text highlighting reduces overreliance on incorrect outputs. Methods: Two randomized controlled experiments were conducted with 338 college students and 563 Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. Both experiments used a 2 by 2 between-subjects design manipulating information accuracy (correct versus incorrect) and text highlighting (highlight versus no highlight). Trust and learned dependency were measured using validated scales, and linear regression models tested main and interaction effects. Results: In both experiments, information accuracy significantly increased trust (p < 0.001), while learned dependency was positively associated with trust (p < 0.05). The interaction between accuracy and dependency was significant (p < 0.001), indicating that highly dependent users were more likely to trust incorrect AI-generated information. Text highlighting had no significant effect on trust and did not moderate the relationship between dependency and trust. Conclusions: Learned dependency weakens trust calibration, increasing susceptibility to inaccurate AI-generated health information. Text highlighting alone is insufficient to reduce overreliance, highlighting the need for more effective interface designs that encourage critical evaluation of GenAI outputs.

The foundational capabilities established by Large Language Models (LLMs) have paved the way for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), within which Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) are essential for realizing universal auditory intelligence. Despite their remarkable performance, the escalation of LALMs' capabilities has significantly outpaced the development of systemic frameworks to ensure their trustworthiness. This survey provides a comprehensive investigation into the endogenous mechanisms of LALMs, detailing the architectural innovations and alignment algorithms that facilitate emergent reasoning. Specifically, we analyze how the transition to unified end-to-end frameworks and the integration of continuous acoustic signals inherently expand the attack surface. To rigorously evaluate the risks within these paradigms, we establish a comprehensive taxonomy of trustworthiness, categorizing critical vulnerabilities such as cross-modal jailbreaking, latent acoustic backdoors, and biometric privacy leakage. We review the state-of-the-art through six analytical pillars: hallucination, robustness, safety, privacy, fairness, and authentication. The profound imbalance between a mature offensive landscape and underdeveloped defenses further validates the critical trustworthiness gaps and multidimensional risks facing audio-centric intelligence. Finally, we propose a strategic roadmap advocating for "Defense-in-Depth" architectures, causal auditory world modeling, and intrinsic representation engineering to bridge the gap between empirical performance and intrinsically trustworthy audio intelligence. Our project has been uploaded to GitHub https://github.com/Kwwwww74/Awesome-Trustworthy-AudioLLMs.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models has given rise to autonomous LLM-based agents capable of complex reasoning and execution. As these agents transition from isolated operation to collaborative ecosystems, we witness the emergence of the Agent-to-Agent (A2A) network, a paradigm where heterogeneous agents autonomously coordinate to solve multi-step tasks. While these networks may offer better task performance compared to simply using one agent to complete the entire task, they introduce systemic vulnerabilities, such as adversarial composition, semantic misalignment, and cascading operational failures, that existing agent alignment techniques cannot address. In this vision paper, we argue that the trustworthiness of A2A networks cannot be fully guaranteed via retrofitting on existing protocols that are largely designed for individual agents. Rather, it must be architected from the very beginning of the A2A coordination framework. We present a comprehensive conceptual framework that situates trust in A2A systems through four design pillars.

Major deployed generative AI advertising systems preserve a visible boundary between commercial content and AI-generated responses. Yet empirical research shows that ads woven directly into large language model (LLM) outputs often go undetected by users. We argue that generative AI fundamentally changes advertising: rather than placing products into discrete slots, it enables interventions on the generative process itself, which induce commercial influence through less observable channels. This reframes generative AI advertising as a problem of trustworthy intervention rather than content placement. We introduce a taxonomy organized by influence tier, corresponding to interventions on progressively more latent variables: product mentions, information framing, behavioral redirection, and long-term preference shaping; and show how these tiers instantiate across modalities and system architectures, including retrieval-augmented generation and agentic pipelines where upstream decisions can sharply constrain downstream outcomes. Both major deployed systems and designed mechanisms concentrate on the most observable and easiest-to-govern tier, while the forms of commercial influence most consequential for user autonomy remain poorly understood and lack frameworks for detection, measurement, or disclosure. The central challenge is whether commercial influence in generative systems can be made trustworthy, i.e., attributable, measurable, contestable, and aligned with user welfare.

Agentic AI systems -- Large Language Models (LLMs) augmented with planning, tool use, memory, and long-horizon interactions -- can execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness. This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments: Safety and Robustness, and Privacy and System Security. For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies. Other trustworthiness aspects (value alignment, transparency, fairness, and accountability) are discussed as relevant context rather than parallel chapters. To support consistent comparison and deployment decisions, we consolidate evaluation into a unified metrics-and-benchmarks hub, emphasizing both outcome and process signals (e.g., constraint violations, trace completeness, and adversarial success rates) and offering scenario-to-metric guidance for release gating. We conclude by outlining open challenges such as self-evolving agents, runtime monitoring and verification, privacy-preserving personalization, and the trust-utility trade-off, and present a case study of real-world security failures in open-source agentic systems. Our goal is to serve as a practical reference for researchers and practitioners building trustworthy agentic systems in high-stakes environments.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation 2024/1689), fully applicable to high-risk systems from August 2026, creates urgent demand for AI architectures that are simultaneously trustworthy, transparent, and feasible to deploy on resource-constrained edge devices. Brain-like neural networks built on the Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN) formalism have re-emerged as a credible alternative to backpropagation-driven deep learning. They deliver state-of-the-art unsupervised representation learning, neuromorphic-friendly sparsity, and existing FPGA implementations that target edge deployment. Despite this momentum, no systematic framework exists for explaining BCPNN decisions -- a gap the present paper fills. We argue that BCPNN is, in the sense of Rudin's interpretable-by-design agenda, an inherently transparent model whose architectural primitives map directly onto established explainable-AI (XAI) families. We make four contributions. First, we propose the first XAI taxonomy for BCPNN. It maps weights, biases, hypercolumn posteriors, structural-plasticity usage scores, attractor dynamics, and input-reconstruction populations onto attribution, prototype, concept, counterfactual, and mechanistic explanation modalities. Second, we introduce sixteen architecture-level explanation primitives (P1--P16), several without analogue in standard ANNs. We provide closed-form algorithms for computing each from quantities the model already maintains. Third, we introduce five design-time Configuration-as-Explanation primitives (Config-P1 to Config-P5) that treat BCPNN hyperparameter choices as an auditable pre-deployment explanation artifact. Fourth, we sketch a roadmap for integration into industrial IoT deployments and discuss EU AI Act alignment, edge feasibility, and Industry 5.0 implications.

In this thesis, we develop algorithms with theoretical guarantees for ensuring reliability and accountability of Machine Learning (ML) systems. As ML systems evolve from predictive models to generative models and autonomous agents, the landscape of trustworthy AI has shifted. This thesis introduces tools grounded in information theory, optimization, and statistical learning to mitigate bias, reduce arbitrary decisions, ensure content provenance, and evaluate LLM-driven agents in autonomous settings. Towards mitigating bias and arbitrariness in traditional ML models, we introduce a kernel-based method to achieve multiaccuracy across complex subpopulations that traditional demographic categories may overlook. We also develop methods to address predictive multiplicity, where equally accurate models yield conflicting individual predictions. We ensure the accountability in generative AI through watermarking large language models (LLMs). We characterize the information-theoretic trade-off between watermark detection and text distortion and derive optimal watermarking strategies by leveraging optimal transport and coding theory. Empirical evaluations show our watermarks achieve a superior detection-quality tradeoff across language generation and coding tasks. Finally, we evaluate autonomous LLM agents in multi-agent environments through the first simulator of a fully LLM-driven supply chain. LLM agents offer significant performance gains, outperforming human teams and reducing costs by up to 67%, but also introduce systemic risks, including costly tail events.

Autonomous AI agents already transact at production scale -- 69,000 bots, 165 million transactions, $50 million in volume on a single marketplace -- and any party can verify a signed credential without a central service. In an open agent world that covers most of what trust requires: there are no universal borders, and each party chooses for itself whom to deal with. Borders appear only where a closed space draws one -- a marketplace, a platform, or a consortium sets house rules. Whoever draws the border holds the authority to apply it, and may apply it as they choose, behind closed doors. This paper addresses the gap that opens there: when you rely on someone else's border, how do you check that they applied their own published rules -- taking no one's word for it, and handing the check to no new trusted party? Our answer is the Combined Evidence Protocol (CEP): a five-condition predicate any party recomputes from anchored data, turning "did the boundary-owner follow its own admission rules" into a fact anyone verifies rather than a claim anyone believes. The move that secures optimistic rollups secures this -- correctness rests on recomputation, so the measurement belongs to everyone and the oracle problem dissolves. Its load-bearing setting is a consortium of co-equal, mutually distrusting peers under a shared charter, each able to verify, independently, that the rules they jointly agreed are the rules being applied. CEP belongs to the family of trustless systems -- optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups, verifiable ML, self-sovereign-identity predicates. The infrastructure beneath it is live: a W3C VC + DID trust layer running since March 2026, anchored on Base L2, continuing arXiv:2605.06738 and standing on its own.

Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.

We introduce TRACE, a cross-domain engineering framework for trustworthy agentic AI in operationally critical domains. TRACE combines a four-layer reference architecture with an explicit classical-ML vs. LLM-validator split (L2a/L2b), a stateful orchestration-and-escalation policy (L3), and bounded human supervision (L4); a metrologically grounded trust-metric suite mapped to GUM/VIM/ISO 17025; and a Model-Parsimony principle quantified by the Computational Parsimony Ratio (CPR). Three instantiations--clinical decision support, industrial multi-domain operations, and a judicial AI assistant--transfer the samearchitecture and metrics across principally different governance contexts. The L2a/L2b separation makes the use of large language models a deliberate design decision rather than an architectural default, with parsimony quantified through CPR. TRACE introduces CPR as a first-class design principle in trustworthy-AI engineering.

As artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) models and foundation models (FMs), are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a central challenge. However, the core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously, especially while preserving utility. This position paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI. We ground our arguments in re-interpreting trustworthy AI trade-offs as incompatible invariance requirements under different changes to the data-generating process. We then illustrate this argument through case-study analyses from the literature and a stylized synthetic-data simulation, showing that causality provides a unifying framework for understanding how trade-offs in trustworthy AI arise and how they can be softened or resolved through selective invariance. This perspective applies to both classical ML models and large-scale FMs. Finally, we outline open challenges and opportunities for using causality to build both trustworthy and high-performing AI.

Despite significant strides in factual reliability, errors -- often termed hallucinations -- remain a major concern for generative AI, especially as LLMs are increasingly expected to be helpful in more complex or nuanced setups. Yet even in the simplest setting -- factoid question-answering with clear ground truth-frontier models without external tools continue to hallucinate. We argue that most factuality gains in this domain have come from expanding the model's knowledge boundary (encoding more facts) rather than improving awareness of that boundary (distinguishing known from unknown). We conjecture that the latter is inherently difficult: models may lack the discriminative power to perfectly separate truths from errors, creating an unavoidable tradeoff between eliminating hallucinations and preserving utility. This tradeoff dissolves under a different framing. If we understand hallucinations as confident errors -- incorrect information delivered without appropriate qualification -- a third path emerges beyond the answer-or-abstain dichotomy: expressing uncertainty. We propose faithful uncertainty: aligning linguistic uncertainty with intrinsic uncertainty. This is one facet of metacognition -- the ability to be aware of one's own uncertainty and to act on it. For direct interaction, acting on uncertainty means communicating it honestly; for agentic systems, it becomes the control layer governing when to search and what to trust. Metacognition is thus essential for LLMs to be both trustworthy and capable; we conclude by highlighting open problems for progress towards this objective.

Achieving the right amount of trust in AI systems is important, but challenging. The problem is exacerbated with the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) as they provide human-level communication capabilities, but potentially hallucinate in the content that they generate. Moreover, they express over-confidence in their answers, making it difficult for users to judge their truthfulness. An important human value that users seek is benevolence, which can be met by LLM's self-reflection leading to reliable and honest answers. Accordingly, this paper proposes conveying appropriate levels of self-reflected certainty to build appropriate trust. Our contributions are twofold: 1) We develop CERTA (Certainty Enhanced RAG for Trustworthy Answers), a specialized Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) system that incorporates the relevance between question, context, and answer to reflect its uncertainty in answering questions; 2) We create the Certainty Benchmark with 90 question-context pairs of non-objective questions, divided over four categories (factuality, preference, sycophancy, morality) and three types of contexts (relevant, incomplete, irrelevant). We run experiments with a baseline RAG system and three CERTA settings using two LLMs. Our evaluations indicate that CERTA helps identify answers that are uncertain, decreases the cases of over-agreeing, and provides cautious behavior when prompted for moral judgments.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification, yet centralized approaches suffer four limitations: (1) Robustness, with single points of failure vulnerable to attacks and bias; (2) Scalability, as reasoning complexity creates bottlenecks; (3) Opacity, as hidden auditing erodes trust; and (4) Privacy, as exposed reasoning traces risk model theft. We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations: (i) Hierarchical Directed Acyclic Graphs (HDAGs) that decompose Chain-of-Thought reasoning into five abstraction levels for parallel distributed auditing; (ii) the DAAN protocol, which projects multi-agent interactions into Causal Interaction Graphs (CIGs) for deterministic root-cause attribution; and (iii) a multi-tier consensus mechanism among computational checkers, LLM evaluators, and human experts with stake-weighted voting that guarantees correctness under 30% adversarial participation. We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses. All decisions are recorded on-chain, while privacy-by-design segmentation prevents reconstruction of proprietary logic. Across multiple LLMs and benchmarks, TRUST attains 72.4% accuracy (4-18% above baselines) and remains resilient against 20% corruption. DAAN reaches 70% root-cause attribution (vs. 54-63% for standard methods) with 60% token savings. Human studies validate the design (F1 = 0.89, Brier = 0.074). The framework supports (A1) decentralized auditing, (A2) tamper-proof leaderboards, (A3) trustless data annotation, and (A4) governed autonomous agents, pioneering decentralized AI auditing for safe, accountable deployment of reasoning-capable systems.

Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression. In medicine, trust must be engineered as a measurable system property grounded in evidence, supervision, and operational boundaries of AI autonomy. This article proposes a practical framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy. Rather than replacing deterministic clinical logic wholesale with end-to-end black-box models, the proposed approach combines a deterministic core, a patient-specific AI assistant for contextual validation, a multi-tier model escalation mechanism, and a human supervision layer for verification, escalation, and risk control. We demonstrate that trust also depends on selective verification of clinically critical findings, bounded clinical context, disciplined prompt architecture, and careful evaluation on realistic cases. Classifier-driven modular prompting is examined as an incremental path to scaling clinical depth without sacrificing prompt performance and without waiting for complete rule-based coverage. To operationalize trust, a set of trust metrics is proposed, built on metrological principles -- measurement uncertainty, calibration, traceability -- enabling quantitative rather than subjective assessment of each architectural layer. In this perspective, trustworthy clinical AI emerges not as a property of an individual model, but as an architectural outcome of a system into which evidence trails, human oversight, tiered escalation, and graduated action rights are embedded from the outset.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed, yet their outputs can be highly sensitive to routine, non-adversarial variation in how users phrase queries, a gap not well addressed by existing red-teaming efforts. We propose Green Shielding, a user-centric agenda for building evidence-backed deployment guidance by characterizing how benign input variation shifts model behavior. We operationalize this agenda through the CUE criteria: benchmarks with authentic Context, reference standards and metrics that capture true Utility, and perturbations that reflect realistic variations in the Elicitation of model behavior. Guided by the PCS framework and developed with practicing physicians, we instantiate Green Shielding in medical diagnosis through HealthCareMagic-Diagnosis (HCM-Dx), a benchmark of patient-authored queries, together with structured reference diagnosis sets and clinically grounded metrics for evaluating differential diagnosis lists. We also study perturbation regimes that capture routine input variation and show that prompt-level factors shift model behavior along clinically meaningful dimensions. Across multiple frontier LLMs, these shifts trace out Pareto-like tradeoffs. In particular, neutralization, which removes common user-level factors while preserving clinical content, increases plausibility and yields more concise, clinician-like differentials, but reduces coverage of highly likely and safety-critical conditions. Together, these results show that interaction choices can systematically shift task-relevant properties of model outputs and support user-facing guidance for safer deployment in high-stakes domains. Although instantiated here in medical diagnosis, the agenda extends naturally to other decision-support settings and agentic AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. This limitation poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount. In this paper, we introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs. DAVinCI operates in two stages: (i) it attributes generated claims to internal model components and external sources; (ii) it verifies each claim using entailment-based reasoning and confidence calibration. We evaluate DAVinCI across multiple datasets, including FEVER and CLIMATE-FEVER, and compare its performance against standard verification-only baselines. Our results show that DAVinCI significantly improves classification accuracy, attribution precision, recall, and F1-score by 5-20%. Through an extensive ablation study, we isolate the contributions of evidence span selection, recalibration thresholds, and retrieval quality. We also release a modular DAVinCI implementation that can be integrated into existing LLM pipelines. By bridging attribution and verification, DAVinCI offers a scalable path to auditable, trustworthy AI systems. This work contributes to the growing effort to make LLMs not only powerful but also accountable.

Building trustworthy AI systems for mental health support is a shared priority across stakeholders from multiple disciplines. However, "trustworthy" remains loosely defined and inconsistently operationalized. AI research often focuses on technical criteria (e.g., robustness, explainability, and safety), while therapeutic practitioners emphasize therapeutic fidelity (e.g., appropriateness, empathy, and long-term user outcomes). To bridge the fragmented landscape, we propose a three-layer trust framework, covering human-oriented, AI-oriented, and interaction-oriented trust, integrating the viewpoints of key stakeholders (e.g., practitioners, researchers, regulators). Using this framework, we systematically review existing AI-driven research in mental health domain and examine evaluation practices for ``trustworthy'' ranging from automatic metrics to clinically validated approaches. We highlight critical gaps between what NLP currently measures and what real-world mental health contexts require, and outline a research agenda for building socio-technically aligned and genuinely trustworthy AI for mental health support.

The deployment of AI systems in safety-critical domains, such as industrial defect inspection, autonomous driving, and medical diagnosis, is severely hampered by their lack of reliability. A single undetected erroneous prediction can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Unfortunately, there is often no alternative but to place trust in the outputs of a trained AI system, which operates without an internal safeguard to flag unreliable predictions, even in cases of high accuracy. We propose a post-hoc explanation-based indicator to detect false negatives in binary defect detection networks. To our knowledge, this is the first method to proactively identify potentially erroneous network outputs. Our core idea leverages the difference between class-specific discriminative heatmaps and class-agnostic ones. We compute the difference in their intersection over union (IoU) as a reliability score. An adversarial enhancement method is further introduced to amplify this disparity. Evaluations on two industrial defect detection benchmarks show our method effectively identifies false negatives. With adversarial enhancement, it achieves 100% recall, albeit with a trade-off for true negatives. Our work thus advocates for a new and trustworthy deployment paradigm: data-model-explanation-output, moving beyond conventional end-to-end systems to provide critical support for reliable AI in real-world applications.

General-purpose LLMs pose misinformation risks for development and policy experts, lacking epistemic humility for verifiable outputs. We present AVA (AI + Verified Analysis), a GenAI platform built on a curated library of over 4,000 World Bank Reports with multilingual capabilities. AVA's multi-agent pipeline enables users to query and receive evidence-based syntheses. It operationalizes epistemic humility through two mechanisms: citation verifiability (tracing claims to sources) and reasoned abstention (declining unsupported queries with justification and redirection). We conducted an in-the-wild evaluation with over 2,200 individuals from heterogeneous organisations and roles in 116 countries, via log analysis, surveys, and 20 interviews. Difference-in-Differences estimates associate sustained engagement with 2.4-3.9 hours saved weekly. Qualitatively, participants used AVA as a specialized "evidence engine"; reasoned abstention clarified scope boundaries, and trust was calibrated through institutional provenance and page-anchored citations. We contribute design guidelines for specialized AI and articulate a vision for "ecosystem-aware" Humble AI.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) receive increasing attention and are being deployed across various domains, their potential risks, including generating harmful or biased content, producing unsupported claims, and exhibiting vulnerabilities to adversarial attacks, have drawn significant attention. To enable quick and low-cost adaptation, training-free methods have recently emerged as cost-effective alternatives to post-training alignment techniques. Despite their promising results, these methods are evaluated inconsistently across the literature, cover limited dimensions of trustworthiness, and can introduce undesirable side effects, such as utility degradation and increased brittleness. To fully assess the impacts of these training-free methods, we take a step back and systematically re-evaluate the effectiveness of existing training-free methods against various trustworthy settings and their influence on utility, robustness, and computational overhead. We also categorize these methods into three levels (input, internal, and output) based on where they intervene in the model's information flow during inference. Using this taxonomy, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of various representative and effective methods from each level across different LLM families and sizes. Our analysis highlights several trade-offs and unresolved challenges in current approaches. We summarize key findings and limitations in the existing literature, and propose practical recommendations for balancing trustworthiness, utility, and robustness in LLMs without the need for additional training.

Deploying trustworthy AI systems requires principled uncertainty quantification. Conformal prediction (CP) is a widely used framework for constructing prediction sets with distribution-free coverage guarantees. In many practical settings, including healthcare, finance, and mobile sensing, the calibration data required for CP are distributed across multiple clients, each with its own local data distribution. In this federated setting, data can often be partitioned into, potentially overlapping, groups, which may reflect client-specific strata or cross-cutting attributes such as demographic or semantic categories. We propose group-conditional federated conformal prediction (GC-FCP), a federated extension of conditional conformal calibration for a target mixture over prespecified groups. GC-FCP constructs mergeable, atom-stratified coresets from local calibration scores, enabling compact aggregation at the server when the number of active atoms is moderate. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets validate the performance of GC-FCP compared to centralized calibration baselines. The code of our work can be found at https://github.com/HaifengWen/GC-FCP.

When a model knows when it does not know, many possibilities emerge. The first question is how to enable a model to recognize that it does not know. A promising approach is to use confidence, computed from the model's internal signals, to reflect its ignorance. Prior work in specific domains has shown that calibration can provide reliable confidence estimates. In this work, we propose a simple, effective, and universal training-free method that applies to both vision and language models, performing model calibration, cascading, and data cleaning to better exploit a model's ability to recognize when it does not know. We first highlight two key empirical observations: higher confidence corresponds to higher accuracy within a single model, and models calibrated on the validation set remain calibrated on a held-out test set. These findings empirically establish the reliability and comparability of calibrated confidence. Building on this, we introduce two applications: (1) model cascading with calibrated advantage routing and (2) data cleaning based on model ensemble. Using the routing signal derived from the comparability of calibrated confidences, we cascade large and small models to improve efficiency with almost no compromise in accuracy, and we further cascade two models of comparable scale to achieve performance beyond either model alone. Leveraging multiple experts and their calibrated confidences, we design a simple yet effective data-cleaning method that balances precision and detection rate to identify mislabeled samples in ImageNet and Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) datasets. Our results demonstrate that enabling models to recognize when they do not know is a practical step toward more efficient, reliable, and trustworthy AI.