Ko Watanabe

Ko Watanabe, Shoya Ishimaru

Employees often struggle to identify ``who knows what,'' leading to organizational productivity losses. We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can infer individual domain knowledge directly from long-term Slack logs. Analyzing 27,188 messages from 43 users, we evaluated seven models (including Gemini, Claude, and GPT families) by comparing their zero-shot estimates against self-reported skill ratings from 27 participants. Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the lowest error (MAE 21.13%), while GPT models showed significantly larger discrepancies. Notably, estimation accuracy depended only weakly on message volume, indicating that more text alone does not guarantee better inference. These findings demonstrate the feasibility and current limits of automated expertise mapping, highlighting the need for privacy-preserving deployments and richer, structure-aware representations of human knowledge.

Ko Watanabe, Stanislav Frolov, Adriano Lucieri et al.

Recent advancements in Deep Learning and its application on the edge hold great potential for the revolution of routine screenings for skin cancers like Melanoma. Along with the anticipated benefits of this technology, potential dangers arise from unforseen and inherent biases. Thus, assessing and improving the fairness of such systems is of utmost importance. A key challenge in fairness assessment is to ensure that the evaluation dataset is sufficiently representative of different Personal Identifiable Information (PII) (sex, age, and race) and other minority groups. Against the backdrop of this challenge, this study leverages the state-of-the-art Generative AI (GenAI) LightningDiT model to assess the fairness of publicly available melanoma classifiers. The results suggest that fairness assessment using highly realistic synthetic data is a promising direction. Yet, our findings indicate that verifying fairness becomes difficult when the melanoma-detection model used for evaluation is trained on data that differ from the dataset underpinning the synthetic images. Nonetheless, we propose that our approach offers a valuable new avenue for employing synthetic data to gauge and enhance fairness in medical-imaging GenAI systems.

David Dembinsky, Adriano Lucieri, Stanislav Frolov et al.

Modern AI systems frequently rely on opaque black-box models, most notably Deep Neural Networks, whose performance stems from complex architectures with millions of learned parameters. While powerful, their complexity poses a major challenge to trustworthiness, particularly due to a lack of transparency. Explainable AI (XAI) addresses this issue by providing human-understandable explanations of model behavior. However, to ensure their usefulness and trustworthiness, such explanations must be rigorously evaluated. Despite the growing number of XAI methods, the field lacks standardized evaluation protocols and consensus on appropriate metrics. To address this gap, we conduct a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and introduce a unified framework for the eValuation of XAI (VXAI). We identify 362 relevant publications and aggregate their contributions into 41 functionally similar metric groups. In addition, we propose a three-dimensional categorization scheme spanning explanation type, evaluation contextuality, and explanation quality desiderata. Our framework provides the most comprehensive and structured overview of VXAI to date. It supports systematic metric selection, promotes comparability across methods, and offers a flexible foundation for future extensions.