Explainability Evaluation

Existing XAI metrics measure faithfulness for a single model, ignoring model multiplicity where near-optimal classifiers rely on different or spurious acoustic cues. In noisy farm environments, stationary artifacts such as ventilation noise can produce explanations that are faithful yet unreliable, as masking-based metrics fail to penalize redundant shortcuts. We propose AGRI-Fidelity, a reliability-oriented evaluation framework for listenable explanations in poultry disease detection without spatial ground truth. The method combines cross-model consensus with cyclic temporal permutation to construct null distributions and compute a False Discovery Rate (FDR), suppressing stationary artifacts while preserving time-localized bioacoustic markers. Across real and controlled datasets, AGRI-Fidelity effectively provides reliability-aware discrimination for all data points versus masking-based metrics.

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in educational assessment has created new opportunities for scalable item creation, personalized feedback, and efficient formative evaluation. However, despite advances in taxonomy alignment and automated question generation, the absence of transparent, explainable, and certifiable mechanisms limits institutional and accreditation-level acceptance. This chapter proposes a comprehensive framework for explainability and certification of AI-generated assessment items, combining self-rationalization, attribution-based analysis, and post-hoc verification to produce interpretable cognitive-alignment evidence grounded in Bloom's and SOLO taxonomies. A structured certification metadata schema is introduced to capture provenance, alignment predictions, reviewer actions, and ethical indicators, enabling audit-ready documentation consistent with emerging governance requirements. A traffic-light certification workflow operationalizes these signals by distinguishing auto-certifiable items from those requiring human review or rejection. A proof-of-concept study on 500 AI-generated computer science questions demonstrates the framework's feasibility, showing improved transparency, reduced instructor workload, and enhanced auditability. The chapter concludes by outlining ethical implications, policy considerations, and directions for future research, positioning explainability and certification as essential components of trustworthy, accreditation-ready AI assessment systems.

The growing use of Machine Learning (ML) tools comes with critical challenges, such as limited model explainability. We propose a global explainability framework that leverages Optimal Transport and Distributionally Robust Optimization to analyze how ML algorithms respond to constrained data perturbations. Our approach enforces constraints on feature-level statistics (e.g., brightness, age distribution), generating realistic perturbations that preserve semantic structure. We provide a model-agnostic diagnostic bench that applies to both tabular and image domains with solid theoretical guarantees. We validate the approach on real-world datasets providing interpretable robustness diagnostics that complement standard evaluation and fairness auditing tools.

The assumption that prediction-equivalent models produce equivalent explanations underlies many practices in explainable AI, including model selection, auditing, and regulatory evaluation. In this work, we show that this assumption does not hold. Through a large-scale empirical study across 24 datasets and multiple model classes, we find that models with identical predictive behavior can produce substantially different feature attributions. This disagreement is highly structured: models within the same hypothesis class exhibit strong agreement, while cross-class pairs (e.g., tree-based vs. linear) trained on identical data splits show substantially reduced agreement, consistently near or below the lottery threshold. We identify hypothesis class as the structural driver of this phenomenon, which we term the Explanation Lottery. We theoretically show that the resulting Agreement Gap persists under interaction structure in the data-generating process. This structural finding motivates a post-hoc diagnostic, the Explanation Reliability Score R(x), which predicts when explanations are stable across architectures without additional training. Our results demonstrate that model selection is not explanation-neutral: the hypothesis class chosen for deployment can determine which features are attributed responsibility for a decision.

Explainability is widely regarded as essential for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. However, the metrics commonly used to evaluate counterfactual explanations are algorithmic evaluation metrics that are rarely validated against human judgments of explanation quality. This raises the question of whether such metrics meaningfully reflect user perceptions. We address this question through an empirical study that directly compares algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments across three datasets. Participants rated counterfactual explanations along multiple dimensions of perceived quality, which we relate to a comprehensive set of standard counterfactual metrics. We analyze both individual relationships and the extent to which combinations of metrics can predict human assessments. Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent. Moreover, increasing the number of metrics used in predictive models does not lead to reliable improvements, indicating structural limitations in how current metrics capture criteria relevant for humans. Overall, our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users, underscoring the need for more human-centered approaches to evaluating explainable artificial intelligence.

Fairness in machine learning is predominantly evaluated through outcome-oriented metrics, such as Demographic parity, which measure whether predictions are statistically consistent across protected groups. However, these metrics cannot detect whether a model uses systematically different reasoning for different demographic groups, which violates procedural fairness principles. This problem is compounded by intersectionality, where models may appear fair on individual attributes (e.g., race) while exhibiting significant disparities for intersectional subgroups (e.g., race $\times$ gender), a phenomenon known as fairness gerrymandering. In this work, we introduce Multi-category Explanation Stability Disparity (MESD), a procedural fairness metric that quantifies disparities in explanation quality across intersectional subgroups formed by the Cartesian product of multiple protected attributes. MESD integrates three components, which are label-aware aggregation aligned with outcome-conditional fairness, empirical-Bayes shrinkage to stabilize estimates for small intersectional groups, and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) weighting to emphasize worst-case subgroup disparities. We integrate MESD within a multi-objective optimization framework (UEF) that jointly optimizes utility, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness using NSGA-II. We evaluated MESD and UEF on three benchmark datasets along with four state-of-the-art methods in several experiments, and we demonstrate that MESD reveals procedural disparities invisible to outcome metrics alone. We position our contribution within procedural justice theory and discuss implications for regulatory compliance and intersectional equity.

This article examines the application of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in NLP based fake news detection and compares selected interpretability methods. The work outlines key aspects of disinformation, neural network architectures, and XAI techniques, with a focus on SHAP, LIME, and Integrated Gradients. In the experimental study, classification models were implemented and interpreted using these methods. The results show that XAI enhances model transparency and interpretability while maintaining high detection accuracy. Each method provides distinct explanatory value: SHAP offers detailed local attributions, LIME provides simple and intuitive explanations, and Integrated Gradients performs efficiently with convolutional models. The study also highlights limitations such as computational cost and sensitivity to parameterization. Overall, the findings demonstrate that integrating XAI with NLP is an effective approach to improving the reliability and trustworthiness of fake news detection systems.

The study of the attribution of input features to the output of neural network models is an active area of research. While numerous Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed to interpret these models, the systematic and automated evaluation of these methods in sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models is less explored. This paper introduces a new approach for evaluating explainability methods in transformer-based seq2seq models. We use teacher-derived attribution maps as a structured side signal to guide a student model, and quantify the utility of different attribution methods through the student's ability to simulate targets. Using the Inseq library, we extract attribution scores over source-target sequence pairs and inject these scores into the attention mechanism of a student transformer model under four composition operators (addition, multiplication, averaging, and replacement). Across three language pairs (de-en, fr-en, ar-en) and attributions from Marian-MT and mBART models, Attention, Value Zeroing, and Layer Gradient $\times$ Activation consistently yield the largest gains in BLEU (and corresponding improvements in chrF) relative to baselines. In contrast, other gradient-based methods (Saliency, Integrated Gradients, DeepLIFT, Input $\times$ Gradient, GradientShap) lead to smaller and less consistent improvements. These results suggest that different attribution methods capture distinct signals and that attention-derived attributions better capture alignment between source and target representations in seq2seq models. Finally, we introduce an Attributor transformer that, given a source-target pair, learns to reconstruct the teacher's attribution map. Our findings demonstrate that the more accurately the Attributor can reproduce attribution maps, the more useful an injection of those maps is for the downstream task. The source code can be found on GitHub.

We propose FAME (Formal Abstract Minimal Explanations), a new class of abductive explanations grounded in abstract interpretation. FAME is the first method to scale to large neural networks while reducing explanation size. Our main contribution is the design of dedicated perturbation domains that eliminate the need for traversal order. FAME progressively shrinks these domains and leverages LiRPA-based bounds to discard irrelevant features, ultimately converging to a formal abstract minimal explanation. To assess explanation quality, we introduce a procedure that measures the worst-case distance between an abstract minimal explanation and a true minimal explanation. This procedure combines adversarial attacks with an optional VERIX+ refinement step. We benchmark FAME against VERIX+ and demonstrate consistent gains in both explanation size and runtime on medium- to large-scale neural networks.

Deep learning models achieve remarkable predictive performance, yet their black-box nature limits transparency and trustworthiness. Although numerous explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods have been proposed, they primarily provide saliency maps or concepts (i.e., unstructured interpretability). Existing approaches often rely on auxiliary models (\eg, GPT, CLIP) to describe model behavior, thereby compromising faithfulness to the original models. We propose Interpretability to Explainability (I2X), a framework that builds structured explanations directly from unstructured interpretability by quantifying progress at selected checkpoints during training using prototypes extracted from post-hoc XAI methods (e.g., GradCAM). I2X answers the question of "why does it look there" by providing a structured view of both intra- and inter-class decision making during training. Experiments on MNIST and CIFAR10 demonstrate effectiveness of I2X to reveal prototype-based inference process of various image classification models. Moreover, we demonstrate that I2X can be used to improve predictions across different model architectures and datasets: we can identify uncertain prototypes recognized by I2X and then use targeted perturbation of samples that allows fine-tuning to ultimately improve accuracy. Thus, I2X not only faithfully explains model behavior but also provides a practical approach to guide optimization toward desired targets.

Algorithmic support systems often return optimal solutions that are hard to understand. Effective human-algorithm collaboration, however, requires interpretability. When machine solutions are equally optimal, humans must select one, but a precise account of what makes one solution more interpretable than another remains missing. To identify structural properties of interpretable machine solutions, we present an experimental paradigm in which participants chose which of two equally optimal solutions for packing items into bins was easier to understand. We show that preferences reliably track three quantifiable properties of solution structure: alignment with a greedy heuristic, simple within-bin composition, and ordered visual representation. The strongest associations were observed for ordered representations and heuristic alignment, with compositional simplicity also showing a consistent association. Reaction-time evidence was mixed, with faster responses observed primarily when heuristic differences were larger, and aggregate webcam-based gaze did not show reliable effects of complexity. These results provide a concrete, feature-based account of interpretability in optimal packing solutions, linking solution structure to human preference. By identifying actionable properties (simple compositions, ordered representation, and heuristic alignment), our findings enable interpretability-aware optimization and presentation of machine solutions, and outline a path to quantify trade-offs between optimality and interpretability in real-world allocation and design tasks.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) aim for ante-hoc interpretability by learning a bottleneck layer that predicts interpretable concepts before the decision. State-of-the-art approaches typically select which concepts to learn via human specification, open knowledge graphs, prompting an LLM, or using general CLIP concepts. However, concepts defined a-priori may not have sufficient predictive power for the task or even be learnable from the available data. As a result, these CBMs often significantly trail their black-box counterpart when controlling for information leakage. To address this, we introduce a novel CBM pipeline named Mechanistic CBM (M-CBM), which builds the bottleneck directly from a black-box model's own learned concepts. These concepts are extracted via Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) and subsequently named and annotated on a selected subset of images using a Multimodal LLM. For fair comparison and leakage control, we also introduce the Number of Contributing Concepts (NCC), a decision-level sparsity metric that extends the recently proposed NEC metric. Across diverse datasets, we show that M-CBMs consistently surpass prior CBMs at matched sparsity, while improving concept predictions and providing concise explanations. Our code is available at https://github.com/Antonio-Dee/M-CBM.

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis and prognosis increasingly rely on machine learning (ML) models. Although these models provide good results, clinical adoption is limited by the need for technical expertise and the lack of trustworthy and consistent model explanations. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) is com-monly used to interpret AD models, but existing studies tend to focus on explanations for isolated tasks, providing little evidence about their robustness across disease stages, model architectures, or prediction objectives. This paper proposes a multi-level explainability framework that measures the coherence, stabil-ity and consistency of explanations by integrating: (1) within-model coherence metrics between feature importance and SHAP, (2) SHAP stability across AD boundaries, and (3) SHAP cross-task consistency be-tween diagnosis and prognosis. Using AutoML to optimize classifiers on the NACC dataset, we trained four diagnostic and four prognostic models covering the standard AD progression stages. Stability was then evaluated using correlation metrics, top-k feature overlap, SHAP sign consistency, and domain-level contribution ratios. Results show that cognitive and functional markers dominate SHAP explanations in both diagnosis and prognosis. SHAP-SHAP consistency between diagnostic and prognostic models was high across all classifiers, with 100% sign stability and minimal shifts in explanatory magnitude. Domain-level contributions also remained stable, with only minimal increases in genetic features for prognosis. These results demonstrate that SHAP explanations can be quantitatively vali-dated for robustness and transferability, providing clinicians with more reliable interpretations of ML pre-dictions.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based coding agents show promise in automating software development tasks, yet they frequently fail in ways that are difficult for developers to understand and debug. While general-purpose LLMs like GPT can provide ad-hoc explanations of failures, raw execution traces remain challenging to interpret even for experienced developers. We present a systematic explainable AI (XAI) approach that transforms raw agent execution traces into structured, human-interpretable explanations. Our method consists of three key components: (1) a domain-specific failure taxonomy derived from analyzing real agent failures, (2) an automatic annotation system that classifies failures using defined annotation schema, (3) a hybrid explanation generator that produces visual execution flows, natural language explanations, and actionable recommendations. Through a user study with 20 participants (10 technical, 10 non-technical), we demonstrate that our approach enables users to identify failure root causes 2.8 times faster and propose correct fixes with 73% higher accuracy compared to raw execution traces. Importantly, our structured approach outperforms ad-hoc state of the art models explanations by providing consistent, domain-specific insights with integrated visualizations. Our work establishes a framework for systematic agent failure analysis, addressing the critical need for interpretable AI systems in software development workflows

Interpreting the decision-making process of deep convolutional neural networks remains a central challenge in achieving trustworthy and transparent artificial intelligence. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, particularly Class Activation Map (CAM) methods, are widely adopted to visualize the input regions influencing model predictions. Gradient-based approaches (e.g. Grad-CAM) provide highly discriminative, fine-grained details by computing gradients of class activations but often yield noisy and incomplete maps that emphasize only the most salient regions rather than the complete objects. Region-based approaches (e.g. Score-CAM) aggregate information over larger areas, capturing broader object coverage at the cost of over-smoothing and reduced sensitivity to subtle features. We introduce Fusion-CAM, a novel framework that bridges this explanatory gap by unifying both paradigms through a dedicated fusion mechanism to produce robust and highly discriminative visual explanations. Our method first denoises gradient-based maps, yielding cleaner and more focused activations. It then combines the refined gradient map with region-based maps using contribution weights to enhance class coverage. Finally, we propose an adaptive similarity-based pixel-level fusion that evaluates the agreement between both paradigms and dynamically adjusts the fusion strength. This adaptive mechanism reinforces consistent activations while softly blending conflicting regions, resulting in richer, context-aware, and input-adaptive visual explanations. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks show that Fusion-CAM consistently outperforms existing CAM variants in both qualitative visualization and quantitative evaluation, providing a robust and flexible tool for interpreting deep neural networks.

A central challenge in AI-assisted decision making is achieving warranted, well-calibrated trust. Both overtrust (accepting incorrect AI recommendations) and undertrust (rejecting correct advice) should be prevented. Prior studies differ in the design of the decision workflow - whether users see the AI suggestion immediately (1-step setup) or have to submit a first decision beforehand (2-step setup) -, and in how trust is measured - through self-reports or as behavioral trust, that is, reliance. We examined the effects and interactions of (a) the type of decision workflow, (b) the presence of explanations, and (c) users' domain knowledge and prior AI experience. We compared reported trust, reliance (agreement rate and switch rate), and overreliance. Results showed no evidence that a 2-step setup reduces overreliance. The decision workflow also did not directly affect self-reported trust, but there was a crossover interaction effect with domain knowledge and explanations, suggesting that the effects of explanations alone may not generalize across workflow setups. Finally, our findings confirm that reported trust and reliance behavior are distinct constructs that should be evaluated separately in AI-assisted decision making.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods (SHAP, LIME) are increasingly adopted to interpret models in high-stakes businesses. However, the credibility of these explanations, their stability under realistic data perturbations, remains unquantified. This paper introduces the Credibility Index via Explanation Stability (CIES), a mathematically grounded metric that measures how robust a model's explanations are when subject to realistic business noise. CIES captures whether the reasons behind a prediction remain consistent, not just the prediction itself. The metric employs a rank-weighted distance function that penalizes instability in the most important features disproportionately, reflecting business semantics where changes in top decision drivers are more consequential than changes in marginal features. We evaluate CIES across three datasets (customer churn, credit risk, employee attrition), four tree-based classification models and two data balancing conditions. Results demonstrate that model complexity impacts explanation credibility, class imbalance treatment via SMOTE affects not only predictive performance but also explanation stability, and CIES provides statistically superior discriminative power compared to a uniform baseline metric (p < 0.01 in all 24 configurations). A sensitivity analysis across four noise levels confirms the robustness of the metric itself. These findings offer business practitioners a deployable "credibility warning system" for AI-driven decision support.

Accurate predictions of ship trajectories in crowded environments are essential to ensure safety in inland waterways traffic. Recent advances in deep learning promise increased accuracy even for complex scenarios. While the challenge of ship-to-ship awareness is being addressed with growing success, the explainability of these models is often overlooked, potentially obscuring an inaccurate logic and undermining the confidence in their reliability. This study examines an LSTM-based vessel trajectory prediction model by incorporating trained ship domain parameters that provide insight into the attention-based fusion of the interacting vessels' hidden states. This approach has previously been explored in the field of maritime shipping, yet the variety and complexity of encounters in inland waterways allow for a more profound analysis of the model's interpretability. The prediction performance of the proposed model variants are evaluated using standard displacement error statistics. Additionally, the plausibility of the generated ship domain values is analyzed. With an final displacement error of around 40 meters in a 5-minute prediction horizon, the model performs comparably to similar studies. Though the ship-to-ship attention architecture enhances prediction accuracy, the weights assigned to vessels in encounters using the learnt ship domain values deviate from the expectation. The observed accuracy improvements are thus not entirely driven by a causal relationship between a predicted trajectory and the trajectories of nearby ships. This finding underscores the model's explanatory capabilities through its intrinsically interpretable design. Future work will focus on utilizing the architecture for counterfactual analysis and on the incorporation of more sophisticated attention mechanisms.

LLM-based explainable recommenders can produce fluent explanations that are factually correct, yet still justify items using attributes that conflict with a user's historical preferences. Such preference-inconsistent explanations yield logically valid but unconvincing reasoning and are largely missed by standard hallucination or faithfulness metrics. We formalize this failure mode and propose PURE, a preference-aware reasoning framework following a select-then-generate paradigm. Instead of only improving generation, PURE intervenes in evidence selection, it selects a compact set of multi-hop item-centric reasoning paths that are both factually grounded and aligned with user preference structure, guided by user intent, specificity, and diversity to suppress generic, weakly personalized evidence. The selected evidence is then injected into LLM generation via structure-aware prompting that preserves relational constraints. To measure preference inconsistency, we introduce a feature-level, user-centric evaluation metric that reveals misalignment overlooked by factuality-based measures. Experiments on three real-world datasets show that PURE consistently reduces preference-inconsistent explanations and factual hallucinations while maintaining competitive recommendation accuracy, explanation quality, and inference efficiency. These results highlight that trustworthy explanations require not only factual correctness but also justification aligned with user preferences.

This technical report provides an extended validation of the Explainability Solution Space (ESS) through cross-domain evaluation. While initial validation focused on employee attrition prediction, this study introduces a heterogeneous intelligent urban resource allocation system to demonstrate the generality and domain-independence of the ESS framework. The second case study integrates tabular, temporal, and geospatial data under multi-stakeholder governance conditions. Explicit quantitative positioning of representative XAI families is provided for both contexts. Results confirm that ESS rankings are not domain-specific but adapt systematically to governance roles, risk profiles, and stakeholder configurations. The findings reinforce ESS as a generalizable operational decision-support instrument for explainable AI strategy design across socio-technical systems.

Can Machine Learning (ML) autonomously recover interpretable mathematical structure from raw numerical data? We aim to answer this question using the classification of real-root configurations of polynomials up to degree five as a structured benchmark. We tested an extensive set of ML models, including decision trees, logistic regression, support vector machines, random forest, gradient boosting, XGBoost, symbolic regression, and neural networks. Neural networks achieved strong in-distribution performance on quintic classification using raw coefficients alone (84.3% + or - 0.9% balanced accuracy), whereas decision trees perform substantially worse (59.9% + or - 0.9%). However, when provided with an explicit feature capturing sign changes at critical points, decision trees match neural performance (84.2% + or - 1.2%) and yield explicit classification rules. Knowledge distillation reveals that this single invariant accounts for 97.5% of the extracted decision structure. Out-of-distribution, data-efficiency, and noise robustness analyses indicate that neural networks learn continuous, data-dependent geometric approximations of the decision boundary rather than recovering scale-invariant symbolic rules. This distinction between geometric approximation and symbolic invariance explains the gap between predictive performance and interpretability observed across models. Although high predictive accuracy is attainable, we find no evidence that the evaluated ML models autonomously recover discrete, human-interpretable mathematical rules from raw coefficients. These results suggest that, in structured mathematical domains, interpretability may require explicit structural inductive bias rather than purely data-driven approximation.

Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks threaten the availability of Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructures, particularly under resource-constrained deployment conditions. Although transfer learning models have shown promising detection accuracy, their reliability, computational feasibility, and interpretability in operational environments remain insufficiently explored. This study presents an explainability aware empirical evaluation of seven pre-trained convolutional neural network architectures for multi-class IoT DDoS detection using the CICDDoS2019 dataset and an image-based traffic representation. The analysis integrates performance metrics, reliability-oriented statistics (MCC, Youden Index, confidence intervals), latency and training cost assessment, and interpretability evaluation using Grad-CAM and SHAP. Results indicate that DenseNet and MobileNet based architectures achieve strong detection performance while demonstrating superior reliability and compact, class-consistent attribution patterns. DenseNet169 offers the strongest reliability and interpretability alignment, whereas MobileNetV3 provides an effective latency-accuracy trade-off for fog-level deployment. The findings emphasize the importance of combining performance, reliability, and explainability criteria when selecting deep learning models for IoT DDoS detection.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is unpredictable, and its prediction in Chagas cardiomyopathy (CC) remains a significant challenge, especially in patients not classified as high risk. While AI and machine learning models improve risk stratification, their adoption is hindered by a lack of transparency, as they are often perceived as black boxes with unclear decision-making processes. Some approaches apply heuristic explanations without correctness guarantees, leading to mistakes in the decision-making process. To address this, we apply a logic-based explainability method with correctness guarantees to the problem of SCD prediction in CC. This explainability method, applied to an AI classifier with over 95% accuracy and recall, demonstrated strong predictive performance and 100% explanation fidelity. When compared to state-of-the-art heuristic methods, it showed superior consistency and robustness. This approach enhances clinical trust, facilitates the integration of AI-driven tools into practice, and promotes large-scale deployment, particularly in endemic regions where it is most needed.

Effectively addressing client resistance is a sophisticated clinical skill in psychological counseling, yet practitioners often lack timely and scalable supervisory feedback to refine their approaches. Although current NLP research has examined overall counseling quality and general therapeutic skills, it fails to provide granular evaluations of high-stakes moments where clients exhibit resistance. In this work, we present a comprehensive pipeline for the multi-dimensional evaluation of human counselors' interventions specifically targeting client resistance in text-based therapy. We introduce a theory-driven framework that decomposes counselor responses into four distinct communication mechanisms. Leveraging this framework, we curate and share an expert-annotated dataset of real-world counseling excerpts, pairing counselor-client interactions with professional ratings and explanatory rationales. Using this data, we perform full-parameter instruction tuning on a Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct backbone to model fine-grained evaluative judgments of response quality and generate explanations underlying. Experimental results show that our approach can effectively distinguish the quality of different communication mechanisms (77-81% F1), substantially outperforming GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet (45-59% F1). Moreover, the model produces high-quality explanations that closely align with expert references and receive near-ceiling ratings from human experts (2.8-2.9/3.0). A controlled experiment with 43 counselors further confirms that receiving these AI-generated feedback significantly improves counselors' ability to respond effectively to client resistance.

Rules and Weights are popular XAI techniques for explaining AI decisions. Yet, it remains unclear how to choose between them, lacking a cognitive framework to compare their interpretability. In an elicitation user study on forward and counterfactual decision tasks, we identified 7 reasoning strategies of interpreting three XAI Schemas - weights, rules, and their hybrid. To analyze their capabilities, we propose CoXAM, a Cognitive XAI-Adaptive Model with shared memory representation to encode instance attributes, linear weights, and decision rules. CoXAM employs computational rationality to choose among reasoning processes based on the trade-off in utility and reasoning time, separately for forward or counterfactual decision tasks. In a validation study, CoXAM demonstrated a stronger alignment with human decision-making compared to baseline machine learning proxy models. The model successfully replicated and explained several key empirical findings, including that counterfactual tasks are inherently harder than forward tasks, decision tree rules are harder to recall and apply than linear weights, and the helpfulness of XAI depends on the application data context, alongside identifying which underlying reasoning strategies were most effective. With CoXAM, we contribute a cognitive basis to accelerate debugging and benchmarking disparate XAI techniques.

Experimental user studies evaluating the effectiveness of different subtypes of post-hoc explanations for black-box models are largely nonexistent. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate how different types of counterfactual explanations, namely single point explanations and interval-based explanations, affect both model understanding and (demonstrated) trust. We conducted an online user study using a within-subjects experimental design, where the experimental arms were (i) no explanation (control), (ii) feature importance scores, (iii) point counterfactual explanations, and (iv) interval counterfactual explanations. Our results clearly show the superiority of interval explanations over other tested explanation types in increasing both model understanding and demonstrated trust in the AI. We could not support findings of some previous studies showing an effect of point counterfactual explanations compared to the control group. Our results further highlight the role individual differences in, for example, cognitive style or personality, in explanation effectiveness.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) offers flexible graph reasoning by combining multiple views of a graph through a learned router. We investigate routing-aware explanations for MoE graph models in malware detection using control flow graphs (CFGs). Our architecture builds diversity at two levels. At the node level, each layer computes multiple neighborhood statistics and fuses them with an MLP, guided by a degree reweighting factor rho and a pooling choice lambda in {mean, std, max}, producing distinct node representations that capture complementary structural cues in CFGs. At the readout level, six experts, each tied to a specific (rho, lambda) view, output graph-level logits that the router weights into a final prediction. Post-hoc explanations are generated with edge-level attributions per expert and aggregated using the router gates so the rationale reflects both what each expert highlights and how strongly it is selected. Evaluated against single-expert GNN baselines such as GCN, GIN, and GAT on the same CFG dataset, the proposed MoE achieves strong detection accuracy while yielding stable, faithful attributions under sparsity-based perturbations. The results indicate that making the router explicit and combining multi-statistic node encoding with expert-level diversity can improve the transparency of MoE decisions for malware analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in translating model-based explanations into human-readable narratives. This study evaluates whether LLMs can serve as post-hoc explainability interfaces for credit risk models, focusing on their ability to preserve feature-importance rankings and generate autonomous explanations. Using a LendingClub dataset, we compare LLM outputs with SHAP and coefficient-based attributions on three major LLMs, including GPT-4-turbo, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, and Gemini-2.5-Flash. Results indicate that LLMs reliably reproduce reference rankings under controlled prompts but show limited alignment when generating explanations autonomously. These findings suggest that LLMs are best deployed as narrative interfaces rather than substitutes for formal attribution methods in credit risk governance.

While mechanistic interpretability has developed powerful tools to analyze the internal workings of Large Language Models (LLMs), their complexity has created an accessibility gap, limiting their use to specialists. We address this challenge by designing, building, and evaluating ELIA (Explainable Language Interpretability Analysis), an interactive web application that simplifies the outcomes of various language model component analyses for a broader audience. The system integrates three key techniques -- Attribution Analysis, Function Vector Analysis, and Circuit Tracing -- and introduces a novel methodology: using a vision-language model to automatically generate natural language explanations (NLEs) for the complex visualizations produced by these methods. The effectiveness of this approach was empirically validated through a mixed-methods user study, which revealed a clear preference for interactive, explorable interfaces over simpler, static visualizations. A key finding was that the AI-powered explanations helped bridge the knowledge gap for non-experts; a statistical analysis showed no significant correlation between a user's prior LLM experience and their comprehension scores, suggesting that the system reduced barriers to comprehension across experience levels. We conclude that an AI system can indeed simplify complex model analyses, but its true power is unlocked when paired with thoughtful, user-centered design that prioritizes interactivity, specificity, and narrative guidance.

Machine learning models are increasingly applied to biomedical data, yet their adoption in high stakes domains remains limited by poor robustness, limited interpretability, and instability of learned features under realistic data perturbations, such as missingness. In particular, models that achieve high predictive performance may still fail to inspire trust if their key features fluctuate when data completeness changes, undermining reproducibility and downstream decision-making. Here, we present CACTUS (Comprehensive Abstraction and Classification Tool for Uncovering Structures), an explainable machine learning framework explicitly designed to address these challenges in small, heterogeneous, and incomplete clinical datasets. CACTUS integrates feature abstraction, interpretable classification, and systematic feature stability analysis to quantify how consistently informative features are preserved as data quality degrades. Using a real-world haematuria cohort comprising 568 patients evaluated for bladder cancer, we benchmark CACTUS against widely used machine learning approaches, including random forests and gradient boosting methods, under controlled levels of randomly introduced missing data. We demonstrate that CACTUS achieves competitive or superior predictive performance while maintaining markedly higher stability of top-ranked features as missingness increases, including in sex-stratified analyses. Our results show that feature stability provides information complementary to conventional performance metrics and is essential for assessing the trustworthiness of machine learning models applied to biomedical data. By explicitly quantifying robustness to missing data and prioritising interpretable, stable features, CACTUS offers a generalizable framework for trustworthy data-driven decision support.