As AI regulations around the world intensify their focus on system safety, contestability has become a mandatory, yet ill-defined, safeguard. In XAI, "contestability" remains an empty promise: no formal definition exists, no algorithm guarantees it, and practitioners lack concrete guidance to satisfy regulatory requirements. Grounded in a systematic literature review, this paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI, directly aligned with stakeholder requirements and regulatory mandates. We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical architectures, legal processes, and organizational workflows. To operationalize our framework, we propose the Contestability Assessment Scale, a composite metric built on more than twenty quantitative criteria. Through multiple case studies across diverse application domains, we reveal where state-of-the-art systems fall short and show how our framework drives targeted improvements. By converting contestability from regulatory theory into a practical framework, our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.

Large Language Model (LLM) Uncertainty Estimation (UE) methods have become a crucial tool for detecting hallucinations in recent years. While numerous UE methods have been proposed, most existing studies evaluate them in isolated short-form QA settings using threshold-independent metrics such as AUROC or PRR. However, real-world deployment of UE methods introduces several challenges. In this work, we systematically examine four key aspects of deploying UE methods in practical settings. Specifically, we assess (1) the sensitivity of UE methods to decision threshold selection, (2) their robustness to query transformations such as typos, adversarial prompts, and prior chat history, (3) their applicability to long-form generation, and (4) strategies for handling multiple UE scores for a single query. Our evaluations on 19 UE methods reveal that most of them are highly sensitive to threshold selection when there is a distribution shift in the calibration dataset. While these methods generally exhibit robustness against previous chat history and typos, they are significantly vulnerable to adversarial prompts. Additionally, while existing UE methods can be adapted for long-form generation through various strategies, there remains considerable room for improvement. Lastly, ensembling multiple UE scores at test time provides a notable performance boost, which highlights its potential as a practical improvement strategy. Code is available at: https://github.com/duygunuryldz/uncertainty_in_the_wild.

The volume of textual data available in aviation safety reports presents a challenge for timely and accurate analysis. This paper examines how Artificial Intelligence (AI) and, specifically, Natural Language Processing (NLP) can automate the process of extracting valuable insights from this data, ultimately enhancing aviation safety. The paper reviews ongoing efforts focused on the application of NLP and deep learning to aviation safety reports, with the goal of classifying the level of damage to an aircraft and identifying the phase of flight during which safety occurrences happen. Additionally, the paper explores the use of Topic Modeling (TM) to uncover latent thematic structures within aviation incident reports, aiming to identify recurring patterns and potential areas for safety improvement. The paper compares and contrasts the performance of various deep learning models and TM techniques applied to datasets from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), as well as the Aviation Safety Network (ASN), discussing the impact of dataset size and source on the accuracy of the analysis. The findings demonstrate that both NLP and deep learning, as well as TM, can significantly improve the efficiency and accuracy of aviation safety analysis, paving the way for more proactive safety management and risk mitigation strategies.

Statistical inference in physics is often based on samples from a generator (sometimes referred to as a ``forward model") that emulate experimental data and depend on parameters of the underlying theory. Modern machine learning has supercharged this workflow to enable high-dimensional and unbinned analyses to utilize much more information than ever before. We propose a general framework for describing the integration of machine learning with generators called Generator Based Inference (GBI). A well-studied special case of this setup is Simulation Based Inference (SBI) where the generator is a physics-based simulator. In this work, we examine other methods within the GBI toolkit that use data-driven methods to build the generator. In particular, we focus on resonant anomaly detection, where the generator describing the background is learned from sidebands. We show how to perform machine learning-based parameter estimation in this context with data-derived generators. This transforms the statistical outputs of anomaly detection to be directly interpretable and the performance on the LHCO community benchmark dataset establishes a new state-of-the-art for anomaly detection sensitivity.

Large Language Models (LLMs) encode behaviors such as refusal within their activation space, yet identifying these behaviors remains a significant challenge. Existing methods often rely on predefined refusal templates detectable in output tokens or require manual analysis. We introduce \textbf{COSMIC} (Cosine Similarity Metrics for Inversion of Concepts), an automated framework for direction selection that identifies viable steering directions and target layers using cosine similarity - entirely independent of model outputs. COSMIC achieves steering performance comparable to prior methods without requiring assumptions about a model's refusal behavior, such as the presence of specific refusal tokens. It reliably identifies refusal directions in adversarial settings and weakly aligned models, and is capable of steering such models toward safer behavior with minimal increase in false refusals, demonstrating robustness across a wide range of alignment conditions.

Humanity is progressing towards automated product development, a trend that promises faster creation of better products and thus the acceleration of technological progress. However, increasing reliance on non-human agents for this process introduces many risks. This perspective aims to initiate a discussion on these risks and appropriate mitigation strategies. To this end, we outline a set of principles for safer AI-driven product development which emphasize human oversight, accountability, and explainable design, among others. The risk assessment covers both technical risks which affect product quality and safety, and sociotechnical risks which affect society. While AI-driven product development is still in its early stages, this discussion will help balance its opportunities and risks without delaying essential progress in understanding, norm-setting, and regulation.

Small Uncrewed Aerial Systems (sUAS) are increasingly deployed as autonomous swarms in search-and-rescue and other disaster-response scenarios. In these settings, they use computer vision (CV) to detect objects of interest and autonomously adapt their missions. However, traditional CV systems often struggle to recognize unfamiliar objects in open-world environments or to infer their relevance for mission planning. To address this, we incorporate large language models (LLMs) to reason about detected objects and their implications. While LLMs can offer valuable insights, they are also prone to hallucinations and may produce incorrect, misleading, or unsafe recommendations. To ensure safe and sensible decision-making under uncertainty, high-level decisions must be governed by cognitive guardrails. This article presents the design, simulation, and real-world integration of these guardrails for sUAS swarms in search-and-rescue missions.

This article presents a structured framework for Human-AI collaboration in Security Operations Centers (SOCs), integrating AI autonomy, trust calibration, and Human-in-the-loop decision making. Existing frameworks in SOCs often focus narrowly on automation, lacking systematic structures to manage human oversight, trust calibration, and scalable autonomy with AI. Many assume static or binary autonomy settings, failing to account for the varied complexity, criticality, and risk across SOC tasks considering Humans and AI collaboration. To address these limitations, we propose a novel autonomy tiered framework grounded in five levels of AI autonomy from manual to fully autonomous, mapped to Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) roles and task-specific trust thresholds. This enables adaptive and explainable AI integration across core SOC functions, including monitoring, protection, threat detection, alert triage, and incident response. The proposed framework differentiates itself from previous research by creating formal connections between autonomy, trust, and HITL across various SOC levels, which allows for adaptive task distribution according to operational complexity and associated risks. The framework is exemplified through a simulated cyber range that features the cybersecurity AI-Avatar, a fine-tuned LLM-based SOC assistant. The AI-Avatar case study illustrates human-AI collaboration for SOC tasks, reducing alert fatigue, enhancing response coordination, and strategically calibrating trust. This research systematically presents both the theoretical and practical aspects and feasibility of designing next-generation cognitive SOCs that leverage AI not to replace but to enhance human decision-making.

Knowledge Editing (KE) has gained increasing attention, yet current KE tasks remain relatively simple. Under current evaluation frameworks, many editing methods achieve exceptionally high scores, sometimes nearing perfection. However, few studies integrate KE into real-world application scenarios (e.g., recent interest in LLM-as-agent). To support our analysis, we introduce a novel script-based benchmark -- ScEdit (Script-based Knowledge Editing Benchmark) -- which encompasses both counterfactual and temporal edits. We integrate token-level and text-level evaluation methods, comprehensively analyzing existing KE techniques. The benchmark extends traditional fact-based ("What"-type question) evaluation to action-based ("How"-type question) evaluation. We observe that all KE methods exhibit a drop in performance on established metrics and face challenges on text-level metrics, indicating a challenging task. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/asdfo123/ScEdit.

Knowledge editing (KE) methods offer an efficient way to modify knowledge in large language models. Current KE evaluations typically assess editing success by considering only the edited knowledge without any preceding contexts. In real-world applications, however, preceding contexts often trigger the retrieval of the original knowledge and undermine the intended edit. To address this issue, we develop CHED -- a benchmark designed to evaluate the context robustness of KE methods. Evaluations on CHED show that they often fail when preceding contexts are present. To mitigate this shortcoming, we introduce CoRE, a KE method designed to strengthen context robustness by minimizing context-sensitive variance in hidden states of the model for edited knowledge. This method not only improves the editing success rate in situations where a preceding context is present but also preserves the overall capabilities of the model. We provide an in-depth analysis of the differing impacts of preceding contexts when introduced as user utterances versus assistant responses, and we dissect attention-score patterns to assess how specific tokens influence editing success.