Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Andrea Ferrario

Publications and source records attributed to Andrea Ferrario.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

A spinal circuit for collective coordination

The coordinated movement of animal groups is one of the most widespread social behaviors, which are generally attributed to high-order cognitive processing in the brain. Yet, collective coordination can seemingly emerge from rapid, local interactions between individuals, suggesting the existence of decentralized mechanisms of online coordination that remain to be identified. Here, we show that a low-order spinal sensorimotor circuit is required for real-time social coordination during schooling in zebrafish. Central to this circuit are intraspinal proprioceptive neurons that detect local body bending and deliver direct, curvature-based inhibition to precisely time the locomotor network. Combining electrophysiology, calcium imaging, optogenetics, and behavioral analysis, we show that this circuit encodes both self-generated (egocentric) and neighbor-induced (allocentric) body bending signals, enabling fish to match the phase of their swimming to the wakes of their neighbors (vortex phase matching). In a neuromechanical model and physical robot, this single feedback loop is sufficient to generate vortex phase matching and to lower the energetic cost of swimming. Disrupting this circuit uncouples neighboring fish and abolishes schooling behavior. These results show that a spinal circuit dynamically synchronizes individuals through simple, local interactions, revealing how low-order mechanisms can drive the emergence of coordinated group behavior.

q-bio.NC↗
arXiv2026

A Methodology for Auditable Trustworthiness Levels in AI Lifecycle Governance

AI governance increasingly requires judgments about whether an AI system remains adequately trustworthy over time, whether observed changes are tolerable, and how such judgments should be documented in a transparent and contestable way. Yet existing work on AI trustworthiness remains either too high-level to support lifecycle monitoring and reassessment or too narrowly metric-driven to connect with governance needs. We therefore propose a lightweight methodology for auditable trustworthiness levels in AI governance. The methodology has two components: a formal framework for representing and learning trustworthiness levels, and a lightweight AI lifecycle governance procedure for documenting, monitoring, and reassessing them over time. The formal framework models governance-relative trustworthiness through a context-sensitive protocol of measurable dimensions and learns trustworthiness levels as interpretable rules over trustworthiness profiles. Using decision trees as an interpretable proof-of-concept model class, the methodology yields explicit trustworthiness plateaus, readable level transitions, and two simple lifecycle diagnostics: boundary margins and profile drift. The governance procedure embeds these formal objects in a conformity-oriented workflow for design-time labeling, post-deployment monitoring, reassessment, and reporting. It also assigns human responsibilities and control gates for protocol design, validation, monitoring, and reassessment. We illustrate the methodology on synthetic AI lifecycle traces involving degradation, shocks, updates, heterogeneous monitoring cadences, and system comparison. Our methodology does not replace legal or other expert judgment: it supports conformity documentation and lifecycle monitoring by providing an evidential basis for documenting and tracking AI governance-relevant changes over time.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

A Category Theory Account of AI Identity

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are routinely modified after deployment through retraining and changes in their environments. These transformations raise a metaphysical question: under what conditions does an AI system remain the same system over time or across deployments? Earlier work formulates synchronic and diachronic identity propositionally, by relating identity within a fixed AI system type to equality of trustworthiness levels. Such criteria specify when identity statements are true, but leave implicit the structure of the states compared, the transformations connecting them, and the temporal organization of persistence. We develop a category-theoretic formalization of AI identity. An AI system type is specified by a datum consisting of a techno-function, a trustworthiness profile, and a trustworthiness-level function. Profile-relative states are connected by admissible lifecycle paths, which are restricted to trustworthiness-level-preserving transformations and quotiented to obtain a reachability category. Temporally admissible functors represent AI system histories, while time-synchronous natural transformations compare realized histories. The formalization yields two categorical interpretations of the earlier AI identity criteria. A weak interpretation recovers identity as equality of trustworthiness level. A strong interpretation requires mutual trustworthiness-preserving reachability, expressed through state isomorphism or natural isomorphism of realized histories. Category theory therefore replaces a single AI identity relation with a structured hierarchy of diachronic and synchronic criteria. The resulting framework identifies identity-related preconditions for transferring responsible-AI claims, evidence, and governance procedures across versions or deployments, without treating categorical identity as sufficient by itself for such transfer.

math.CT↗
arXiv2026

Tree-Based Formalization of Multi-Agent Complementarity in Human-AI Interactions

Complementarity is the case in which a human--AI interaction (HAI) outperforms the best prediction benchmark available among its members. Although this idea is central in HAI research, formal work on complementarity remains limited. Existing frameworks do not model how agents' predictions compose into workflow-sensitive multi-agent protocols. We close this gap by introducing a tree-based formalization of complementarity in multi-agent HAI. An HAI protocol is represented by an ordered agent-role configuration together with a rooted planar binary tree whose leaves are decorated by prediction vectors. A local binary composition rule is evaluated recursively along the tree, yielding a tree-relative complementarity functional relative to a pointwise-min benchmark. We prove four results. First, selector-based HAIs, including reliance, cannot achieve complementarity regardless of task, loss, or prediction quality. Second, in regression under squared loss, complementarity is equivalent to Euclidean distance minimization from the ground-truth vector; for $N=2$, the optimal linear-pooling weight has a closed form and a residual-correction interpretation. Third, under linear local composition, every protocol tree defines a barycentric coordinate chart on the simplex of leaf weights; Tamari-cover reparameterizations of protocol trees preserve complementarity, and for all $N$, any two Tamari paths with the same initial and terminal trees preserve the protocol output and complementarity. Fourth, in binary classification, no internal local composition can achieve complementarity under endpoint-monotone losses, including standard Bregman and many finite Bernoulli $f$-divergence losses; an analogous obstruction holds for multiclass aggregation under cross-entropy. In summary, our framework shows that complementarity is attainable in multi-agent regression, but obstructed in classification.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Update Opacity: Epistemic Accessibility and Governance Under AI System Change

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.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

High-Risk AI Systems and the Problem of Identity in the European AI Act

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification." These obligations presuppose AI identity judgments: regulators and providers must decide when an updated system remains the same system over time. In this work, we show how this logic is clarified by the function+ framework of artifact identity, which individuates AI systems by their intended function together with context-sensitive criteria of appropriate functioning, captured as "AI trustworthiness." We further argue that the AIA does not provide an internal, auditable criterion for synchronic identity--when two AI systems at a given time should count as the same for regulatory purposes--and instead largely defers such sameness determinations to sectoral or harmonization instruments. function+ supplies a synchronic identity test anchored in intended function and trustworthiness profiles and levels, making synchronic identity decisions inspectable in governance settings such as procurement, liability, and market surveillance. Our contribution is a conceptual and auditing lens: we provide a correspondence map between AIA lifecycle obligations and function+ identity components, and we make the synchronic case operationally legible via a minimal decision flow for audit and dispute contexts. We conclude with two implementation-facing recommendations: (1) more precise, testable reporting of intended purpose, and (2) standardized, auditable trustworthiness reporting that supports comparability over time and across deployments.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Beyond the 'Diff': Addressing Agentic Entropy in Agentic Software Development

As autonomous coding agents become deeply embedded in software development workflows, their high operational velocity introduces a critical oversight challenge: the accumulating divergence between agentic actions and architectural intent. We term this process agentic entropy: a systemic drift that traditional code diff-based and HCXAI methods fail to capture, as they address local outputs rather than global agentic behaviour. To close this gap, we propose a process-oriented explainability framework that exposes how agentic decisions unfold across time, tool calls, and architectural boundaries. Built around three pillars (conformity seeding, reasoning monitoring, and a causal graph interface) our approach provides intent-level telemetry that complements, rather than replaces, existing review practices. We demonstrate its relevance across two user profiles: lay users engaged in vibe coding, who gain structural visibility otherwise masked by functional success; and professional developers, who gain richer contextual grounding for code review without increased overhead. By treating cognitive drift as a first-class concern alongside code quality, our framework supports the minimum level of human comprehension required for agentic oversight to remain substantive.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

A Scoping Review of the Ethical Perspectives on Anthropomorphising Large Language Model-Based Conversational Agents

Anthropomorphisation -- the phenomenon whereby non-human entities are ascribed human-like qualities -- has become increasingly salient with the rise of large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs). Unlike earlier chatbots, LLM-based CAs routinely generate interactional and linguistic cues, such as first-person self-reference, epistemic and affective expressions that empirical work shows can increase engagement. On the other hand, anthropomorphisation raises ethical concerns, including deception, overreliance, and exploitative relationship framing, while some authors argue that anthropomorphic interaction may support autonomy, well-being, and inclusion. Despite increasing interest in the phenomenon, literature remains fragmented across domains and varies substantially in how it defines, operationalizes, and normatively evaluates anthropomorphisation. This scoping review maps ethically oriented work on anthropomorphising LLM-based CAs across five databases and three preprint repositories. We synthesize (1) conceptual foundations, (2) ethical challenges and opportunities, and (3) methodological approaches. We find convergence on attribution-based definitions but substantial divergence in operationalization, a predominantly risk-forward normative framing, and limited empirical work that links observed interaction effects to actionable governance guidance. We conclude with a research agenda and design/governance recommendations for ethically deploying anthropomorphic cues in LLM-based conversational agents.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Epistemology gives a Future to Complementarity in Human-AI Interactions

Human-AI complementarity is the claim that a human supported by an AI system can outperform either alone in a decision-making process. Since its introduction in the humanAI interaction literature, it has gained traction by generalizing the reliance paradigm and by offering a more practical alternative to the contested construct of trust in AI. Yet complementarity faces key theoretical challenges: it lacks precise theoretical anchoring, it is formalized only as a post hoc indicator of relative predictive accuracy, it remains silent about other desiderata of human-AI interactions, and it abstracts away from the magnitude-cost profile of its performance gain. As a result, complementarity is difficult to obtain in empirical settings. In this work, we leverage epistemology to address these challenges by reframing complementarity within the discourse on justificatory AI. Drawing on computational reliabilism, we argue that historical instances of complementarity function as evidence that a given human-AI interaction is a reliable epistemic process for a given predictive task. Together with other reliability indicators assessing the alignment of the human-AI team with the epistemic standards and socio-technical practices, complementarity contributes to the degree of reliability of human-AI teams when generating predictions. This repositioning supports the practical reasoning of those affected by these outputs -- patients, managers, regulators, and others. Our approach suggests that the role and value of complementarity lie not in providing a stand-alone measure of relative predictive accuracy, but in helping calibrate decision-making to the reliability of AI-supported processes. We conclude by translating this repositioning into design- and governance-oriented recommendations, including a minimal reporting checklist for justificatory human-AI interactions and measures of efficient complementarity.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2025

A Trustworthiness-based Metaphysics of Artificial Intelligence Systems

Modern AI systems are man-made objects that leverage machine learning to support our lives across a myriad of contexts and applications. Despite extensive epistemological and ethical debates, their metaphysical foundations remain relatively under explored. The orthodox view simply suggests that AI systems, as artifacts, lack well-posed identity and persistence conditions -- their metaphysical kinds are no real kinds. In this work, we challenge this perspective by introducing a theory of metaphysical identity of AI systems. We do so by characterizing their kinds and introducing identity criteria -- formal rules that answer the questions "When are two AI systems the same?" and "When does an AI system persist, despite change?" Building on Carrara and Vermaas' account of fine-grained artifact kinds, we argue that AI trustworthiness provides a lens to understand AI system kinds and formalize the identity of these artifacts by relating their functional requirements to their physical make-ups. The identity criteria of AI systems are determined by their trustworthiness profiles -- the collection of capabilities that the systems must uphold over time throughout their artifact histories, and their effectiveness in maintaining these capabilities. Our approach suggests that the identity and persistence of AI systems is sensitive to the socio-technical context of their design and utilization via their trustworthiness, providing a solid metaphysical foundation to the epistemological, ethical, and legal discussions about these artifacts.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2024

Addressing Social Misattributions of Large Language Models: An HCXAI-based Approach

Human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) advocates for the integration of social aspects into AI explanations. Central to the HCXAI discourse is the Social Transparency (ST) framework, which aims to make the socio-organizational context of AI systems accessible to their users. In this work, we suggest extending the ST framework to address the risks of social misattributions in Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in sensitive areas like mental health. In fact LLMs, which are remarkably capable of simulating roles and personas, may lead to mismatches between designers' intentions and users' perceptions of social attributes, risking to promote emotional manipulation and dangerous behaviors, cases of epistemic injustice, and unwarranted trust. To address these issues, we propose enhancing the ST framework with a fifth 'W-question' to clarify the specific social attributions assigned to LLMs by its designers and users. This addition aims to bridge the gap between LLM capabilities and user perceptions, promoting the ethically responsible development and use of LLM-based technology.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Twenty-Four Years of Empirical Research on Trust in AI: A Bibliometric Review of Trends, Overlooked Issues, and Future Directions

Trust is widely regarded as a critical component to building artificial intelligence (AI) systems that people will use and safely rely upon. As research in this area continues to evolve, it becomes imperative that the research community synchronizes its empirical efforts and aligns on the path toward effective knowledge creation. To lay the groundwork toward achieving this objective, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, supplemented with a qualitative content analysis of over two decades of empirical research measuring trust in AI, comprising 1'156 core articles and 36'306 cited articles across multiple disciplines. Our analysis reveals several "elephants in the room" pertaining to missing perspectives in global discussions on trust in AI, a lack of contextualized theoretical models and a reliance on exploratory methodologies. We highlight strategies for the empirical research community that are aimed at fostering an in-depth understanding of trust in AI.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2022

"Is It My Turn?" Assessing Teamwork and Taskwork in Collaborative Immersive Analytics

Immersive analytics has the potential to promote collaboration in machine learning (ML). This is desired due to the specific characteristics of ML modeling in practice, namely the complexity of ML, the interdisciplinary approach in industry, and the need for ML interpretability. In this work, we introduce an augmented reality-based system for collaborative immersive analytics that is designed to support ML modeling in interdisciplinary teams. We conduct a user study to examine how collaboration unfolds when users with different professional backgrounds and levels of ML knowledge interact in solving different ML tasks. Specifically, we use the pair analytics methodology and performance assessments to assess collaboration and explore their interactions with each other and the system. Based on this, we provide qualitative and quantitative results on both teamwork and taskwork during collaboration. Our results show how our system elicits sustained collaboration as measured along six distinct dimensions. We finally make recommendations how immersive systems should be designed to elicit sustained collaboration in ML modeling.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2022

Creative Uses of AI Systems and their Explanations: A Case Study from Insurance

Recent works have recognized the need for human-centered perspectives when designing and evaluating human-AI interactions and explainable AI methods. Yet, current approaches fall short at intercepting and managing unexpected user behavior resulting from the interaction with AI systems and explainability methods of different stake-holder groups. In this work, we explore the use of AI and explainability methods in the insurance domain. In an qualitative case study with participants with different roles and professional backgrounds, we show that AI and explainability methods are used in creative ways in daily workflows, resulting in a divergence between their intended and actual use. Finally, we discuss some recommendations for the design of human-AI interactions and explainable AI methods to manage the risks and harness the potential of unexpected user behavior.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2022

The Value of Measuring Trust in AI - A Socio-Technical System Perspective

Building trust in AI-based systems is deemed critical for their adoption and appropriate use. Recent research has thus attempted to evaluate how various attributes of these systems affect user trust. However, limitations regarding the definition and measurement of trust in AI have hampered progress in the field, leading to results that are inconsistent or difficult to compare. In this work, we provide an overview of the main limitations in defining and measuring trust in AI. We focus on the attempt of giving trust in AI a numerical value and its utility in informing the design of real-world human-AI interactions. Taking a socio-technical system perspective on AI, we explore two distinct approaches to tackle these challenges. We provide actionable recommendations on how these approaches can be implemented in practice and inform the design of human-AI interactions. We thereby aim to provide a starting point for researchers and designers to re-evaluate the current focus on trust in AI, improving the alignment between what empirical research paradigms may offer and the expectations of real-world human-AI interactions.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2021

A Series of Unfortunate Counterfactual Events: the Role of Time in Counterfactual Explanations

Counterfactual explanations are a prominent example of post-hoc interpretability methods in the explainable Artificial Intelligence research domain. They provide individuals with alternative scenarios and a set of recommendations to achieve a sought-after machine learning model outcome. Recently, the literature has identified desiderata of counterfactual explanations, such as feasibility, actionability and sparsity that should support their applicability in real-world contexts. However, we show that the literature has neglected the problem of the time dependency of counterfactual explanations. We argue that, due to their time dependency and because of the provision of recommendations, even feasible, actionable and sparse counterfactual explanations may not be appropriate in real-world applications. This is due to the possible emergence of what we call "unfortunate counterfactual events." These events may occur due to the retraining of machine learning models whose outcomes have to be explained via counterfactual explanation. Series of unfortunate counterfactual events frustrate the efforts of those individuals who successfully implemented the recommendations of counterfactual explanations. This negatively affects people's trust in the ability of institutions to provide machine learning-supported decisions consistently. We introduce an approach to address the problem of the emergence of unfortunate counterfactual events that makes use of histories of counterfactual explanations. In the final part of the paper we propose an ethical analysis of two distinct strategies to cope with the challenge of unfortunate counterfactual events. We show that they respond to an ethically responsible imperative to preserve the trustworthiness of credit lending organizations, the decision models they employ, and the social-economic function of credit lending.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2020

Auditory streaming emerges from fast excitation and slow delayed inhibition

In the auditory streaming paradigm alternating sequences of pure tones can be perceived as a single galloping rhythm (integration) or as two sequences with separated low and high tones (segregation). Although studied for decades, the neural mechanisms underlining this perceptual grouping of sound remains a mystery. With the aim of identifying a plausible minimal neural circuit that captures this phenomenon, we propose a firing rate model with two periodically forced neural populations coupled by fast direct excitation and slow delayed inhibition. By analyzing the model in a non-smooth, slow-fast regime we analytically prove the existence of a rich repertoire of dynamical states and of their parameter dependent transitions. We impose plausible parameter restrictions and link all states with perceptual interpretations. Regions of stimulus parameters occupied by states linked with each percept matches those found in behavioral experiments. Our model suggests that slow inhibition masks the perception of subsequent tones during segregation (forward masking), while fast excitation enables integration for large pitch differences between the two tones.

math.DS↗