Capability $ eq$ Interpretability: Human Interpretability of Vision Foundation Models

How interpretable are the features of leading vision models? The question is increasingly pressing as these models move from research benchmarks into high-stakes deployments, yet existing methods cannot answer it reliably. We close this gap with a framework for measuring and comparing the human interpretability of vision models, built around two complementary psychophysics protocols: (1) localizability -- can an observer predict where a feature fires on a novel image? -- and (2) nameability -- can an observer accurately describe what the feature represents? Features are recovered via sparse autoencoders, and a chance-anchored scoring function places every model on a common scale. Applying the framework to six vision transformers -- two supervised ViTs and four foundation models (DINOv2, DINOv3, CLIP, SigLIP) -- we collected more than $15{,}000$ behavioral responses, analyzing the $13{,}400$ responses from the $377$ participants who passed our pre-specified quality checks. Foundation models are consistently *less* interpretable than their supervised counterparts, and the gap is not a capability tradeoff: interpretability does not correlate with downstream task performance on any benchmark we examine. What does correlate is the locality of a feature's activations and coarse-grained semantic alignment with humans -- models with focal activations and representations that reflect the world's broad categorical structure produce more interpretable features, whereas fine-grained perceptual alignment does not. The two protocols yield strongly correlated rankings and share the same predictors, establishing interpretability as an independent, measurable dimension of representation quality -- and, surprisingly, one on which every foundation model we tested falls below the supervised baselines that came before. Capability alone cannot close that gap; locality and coarse-grained alignment can.

Why do we Trust Chatbots? From Normative Principles to Behavioral Drivers

As chatbots increasingly blur the boundary between automated systems and human conversation, the foundations of trust in these systems warrant closer examination. While regulatory and policy frameworks tend to define trust in normative terms, the trust users place in chatbots often emerges from behavioral mechanisms. In many cases, this trust is not earned through demonstrated trustworthiness but is instead shaped by interactional design choices that leverage cognitive biases to influence user behavior. Based on this observation, we propose reframing chatbots not as companions or assistants, but as highly skilled salespeople whose objectives are determined by the deploying organization. We argue that the coexistence of competing notions of "trust" under a shared term obscures important distinctions between psychological trust formation and normative trustworthiness. Addressing this gap requires further research and stronger support mechanisms to help users appropriately calibrate trust in conversational AI systems.

Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays

Automated Essay Scoring systems have traditionally focused on holistic scores, limiting their pedagogical usefulness, especially in the case of complex essay genres such as argumentative writing. In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback that aligns with instructional goals and established rubrics. In this paper, we study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms designed for realistic educational deployment: (1) structured in-context learning with small open-source LLMs, and (2) a supervised, encoder-based BigBird model with a CORAL-style ordinal regression formulation, optimized for long-sequence understanding. We conduct a systematic evaluation on the ASAP++ dataset, which includes essay scores across five quality traits, offering strong coverage of core argumentation dimensions. LLMs are prompted with designed, rubric-aligned in-context examples, along with feedback and confidence requests, while we explicitly model ordinality in scores with the BigBird model via the rank-consistent CORAL framework. Our results show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters across all traits, outperforming LLMs and nominal classification and regression-based baselines. This finding reinforces the importance of aligning model objectives with rubric semantics for educational assessment. At the same time, small open-source LLMs achieve a competitive performance without task-specific fine-tuning, particularly for reasoning-oriented traits, while enabling transparent, privacy-preserving, and locally deployable assessment scenarios. Our findings provide methodological, modeling, and practical insights for the design of AI-based educational systems that aim to deliver interpretable, rubric-aligned feedback for argumentative writing.

Aesthetics as Structural Harm: Algorithmic Lookism Across Text-to-Image Generation and Classification

This paper examines algorithmic lookism-the systematic preferential treatment based on physical appearance-in text-to-image (T2I) generative AI and a downstream gender classification task. Through the analysis of 26,400 synthetic faces created with Stable Diffusion 2.1 and 3.5 Medium, we demonstrate how generative AI models systematically associate facial attractiveness with positive attributes and vice-versa, mirroring socially constructed biases rather than evidence-based correlations. Furthermore, we find significant gender bias in three gender classification algorithms depending on the attributes of the input faces. Our findings reveal three critical harms: (1) the systematic encoding of attractiveness-positive attribute associations in T2I models; (2) gender disparities in classification systems, where women's faces, particularly those generated with negative attributes, suffer substantially higher misclassification rates than men's; and (3) intensifying aesthetic constraints in newer models through age homogenization, gendered exposure patterns, and geographic reductionism. These convergent patterns reveal algorithmic lookism as systematic infrastructure operating across AI vision systems, compounding existing inequalities through both representation and recognition. Disclaimer: This work includes visual and textual content that reflects stereotypical associations between physical appearance and socially constructed attributes, including gender, race, and traits associated with social desirability. Any such associations found in this study emerge from the biases embedded in generative AI systems-not from empirical truths or the authors' views.

ELLIS Alicante at CQs-Gen 2025: Winning the critical thinking questions shared task: LLM-based question generation and selection

The widespread adoption of chat interfaces based on Large Language Models (LLMs) raises concerns about promoting superficial learning and undermining the development of critical thinking skills. Instead of relying on LLMs purely for retrieving factual information, this work explores their potential to foster deeper reasoning by generating critical questions that challenge unsupported or vague claims in debate interventions. This study is part of a shared task of the 12th Workshop on Argument Mining, co-located with ACL 2025, focused on automatic critical question generation. We propose a two-step framework involving two small-scale open source language models: a Questioner that generates multiple candidate questions and a Judge that selects the most relevant ones. Our system ranked first in the shared task competition, demonstrating the potential of the proposed LLM-based approach to encourage critical engagement with argumentative texts.

Reconsidering Fairness Through Unawareness from the Perspective of Model Multiplicity

Fairness through Unawareness (FtU) describes the idea that discrimination against demographic groups can be avoided by not considering group membership in the decisions or predictions. This idea has long been criticized in the machine learning literature as not being sufficient to ensure fairness. In addition, the use of additional features is typically thought to increase the accuracy of the predictions for all groups, so that FtU is sometimes thought to be detrimental to all groups. In this paper, we show both theoretically and empirically that FtU can reduce algorithmic discrimination without necessarily reducing accuracy. We connect this insight with the literature on Model Multiplicity, to which we contribute with novel theoretical and empirical results. Furthermore, we illustrate how, in a real-life application, FtU can contribute to the deployment of more equitable policies without losing efficacy. Our findings suggest that FtU is worth considering in practical applications, particularly in high-risk scenarios, and that the use of protected attributes such as gender in predictive models should be accompanied by a clear and well-founded justification.

Diversity-Driven Learning: Tackling Spurious Correlations and Data Heterogeneity in Federated Models

Federated Learning (FL) enables decentralized training of machine learning models on distributed data while preserving privacy. However, in real-world FL settings, client data is often non-identically distributed and imbalanced, resulting in statistical data heterogeneity which impacts the generalization capabilities of the server's model across clients, slows convergence and reduces performance. In this paper, we address this challenge by first proposing a characterization of statistical data heterogeneity by means of 6 metrics of global and client attribute imbalance, class imbalance, and spurious correlations. Next, we create and share 7 computer vision datasets for binary and multiclass image classification tasks in Federated Learning that cover a broad range of statistical data heterogeneity and hence simulate real-world situations. Finally, we propose FedDiverse, a novel client selection algorithm in FL which is designed to manage and leverage data heterogeneity across clients by promoting collaboration between clients with complementary data distributions. Experiments on the seven proposed FL datasets demonstrate FedDiverse's effectiveness in enhancing the performance and robustness of a variety of FL methods while having low communication and computational overhead.

ImageSet2Text: Describing Sets of Images through Text

We introduce ImageSet2Text, a novel approach that leverages vision-language foundation models to automatically create natural language descriptions of image sets. Inspired by concept bottleneck models (CBMs) and based on visual-question answering (VQA) chains, ImageSet2Text iteratively extracts key concepts from image subsets, encodes them into a structured graph, and refines insights using an external knowledge graph and CLIP-based validation. This iterative process enhances interpretability and enables accurate and detailed set-level summarization. Through extensive experiments, we evaluate ImageSet2Text's descriptions on accuracy, completeness, readability and overall quality, benchmarking it against existing vision-language models and introducing new datasets for large-scale group image captioning.

Leveraging Small LLMs for Argument Mining in Education: Argument Component Identification, Classification, and Assessment

Argument mining algorithms analyze the argumentative structure of essays, making them a valuable tool for enhancing education by providing targeted feedback on the students' argumentation skills. While current methods often use encoder or encoder-decoder deep learning architectures, decoder-only models remain largely unexplored, offering a promising research direction. This paper proposes leveraging open-source, small Large Language Models (LLMs) for argument mining through few-shot prompting and fine-tuning. These models' small size and open-source nature ensure accessibility, privacy, and computational efficiency, enabling schools and educators to adopt and deploy them locally. Specifically, we perform three tasks: segmentation of student essays into arguments, classification of the arguments by type, and assessment of their quality. We empirically evaluate the models on the Feedback Prize - Predicting Effective Arguments dataset of grade 6-12 students essays and demonstrate how fine-tuned small LLMs outperform baseline methods in segmenting the essays and determining the argument types while few-shot prompting yields comparable performance to that of the baselines in assessing quality. This work highlights the educational potential of small, open-source LLMs to provide real-time, personalized feedback, enhancing independent learning and writing skills while ensuring low computational cost and privacy.

International AI Safety Report

The first International AI Safety Report comprehensively synthesizes the current evidence on the capabilities, risks, and safety of advanced AI systems. The report was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. Thirty nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. A total of 100 AI experts contributed, representing diverse perspectives and disciplines. Led by the report's Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content.