Poli Nemkova

George Mihaila, Suleyman Olcay Polat, Poli Nemkova et al.

Local explanation methods such as LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016) remain fundamental to trustworthy AI, yet their application to NLP is limited by a reliance on random token masking. These heuristic perturbations frequently generate semantically invalid, out-of-distribution inputs that weaken the fidelity of local surrogate models. While recent generative approaches such as LLiMe (Angiulli et al., 2025b) attempt to mitigate this by employing Large Language Models for neighborhood generation, they rely on unconstrained paraphrasing that introduces confounding variables, making it difficult to isolate specific feature contributions. We introduce LIME-LLM, a framework that replaces random noise with hypothesis-driven, controlled perturbations. By enforcing a strict "Single Mask-Single Sample" protocol and employing distinct neutral infill and boundary infill strategies, LIME-LLM constructs fluent, on-manifold neighborhoods that rigorously isolate feature effects. We evaluate our method against established baselines (LIME, SHAP, Integrated Gradients) and the generative LLiMe baseline across three diverse benchmarks: CoLA, SST-2, and HateXplain using human-annotated rationales as ground truth. Empirical results demonstrate that LIME-LLM establishes a new benchmark for black-box NLP explainability, achieving significant improvements in local explanation fidelity compared to both traditional perturbation-based methods and recent generative alternatives.

Poli Nemkova, Haeshitha Indukuri, Jaedon Charles

Agentic AI systems are increasingly proposed for social-good domains, often invoking the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a vocabulary of global benefit. Yet claims of social good do not establish accountability to the communities a system claims to serve. We present a structured survey of 112 papers on agentic AI for social good published between 2015 and 2026. We find a moral-geographic asymmetry: papers are least likely to specify geographic context in precisely the domains where local political, legal, and cultural context matters most. Across the corpus, 82 of 112 papers (73%) specify no geographic context. Papers aligned with health or physical/ecological SDGs specify geography 37-40% of the time, while papers aligned with institutional and social-policy SDGs do so only 13%. SDG 16, peace, justice, and strong institutions, is both the most-covered goal in the corpus and the one with the lowest geographic-specification rate. We interpret this as moral abstraction: agentic AI for social good often treats institutional good as universal in ways it does not treat health or ecological good. A second finding compounds this: only 28 of 112 papers (25%) report any real-world deployment or small-scale test. We identify five accountability gaps and propose a minimal reporting standard for more context-specific, participatory, and accountable agentic AI for social good.

Poli Nemkova

Media coverage of armed conflict is deeply asymmetric: we document a 224$\times$ gap between the most and least covered conflict zones in English-language media across 22 countries (2020--2026). We evaluate zero-shot conflict escalation forecasting across all 22 countries on a 660-case held-out test set, comparing Llama-3.3-70B and GPT-4o against three structured baselines. The central finding is not a performance gradient but a qualitative failure: LLMs do not forecast conflict -- they categorize it. Llama predicts escalation on every under-covered case, matching the trivial Always-YES baseline to three decimals; GPT-4o predicts NO on every over-covered case, missing all five actual escalation events. A logistic regression using only eleven observation-window features with \emph{no country information} achieves F1~=~0.402, outperforming both LLMs in every measurable tier. This failure cannot be resolved at inference time: adding structured ACLED evidence degrades performance on under-covered zones (GPT-4o F1: 0.323~$\to$~0.168) and falls below LR by a factor of 2.4. The bottleneck is not data availability but the LLM's interpretation of temporal signal under a country-categorical prior. Under-covered populations receive not just less accurate AI, but qualitatively different AI that cannot distinguish stable from escalating periods. We call for coverage-stratified benchmarking, conflict NLP datasets for under-covered zones, and training data documentation standards for geographic conflict representation.