Explainable Artificial Intelligence

In a previous work, we introduced the fuzzy Ethical Decision-Making framework (fEDM), a risk-based ethical reasoning architecture grounded in fuzzy logic. The original model combined a fuzzy Ethical Risk Assessment module (fERA) with ethical decision rules, enabled formal structural verification through Fuzzy Petri Nets (FPNs), and validated outputs against a single normative referent. Although this approach ensured formal soundness and decision consistency, it did not fully address two critical challenges: principled explainability of decisions and robustness under ethical pluralism. In this paper, we extend fEDM in two major directions. First, we introduce an Explainability and Traceability Module (ETM) that explicitly links each ethical decision rule to the underlying moral principles and computes a weighted principle-contribution profile for every recommended action. This enables transparent, auditable explanations that expose not only what decision was made but why, and on the basis of which principles. Second, we replace single-referent validation with a pluralistic semantic validation framework that evaluates decisions against multiple stakeholder referents, each encoding distinct principle priorities and risk tolerances. This shift allows principled disagreement to be formally represented rather than suppressed, thus increasing robustness and contextual sensitivity. The resulting extended fEDM, called fEDM+, preserves formal verifiability while achieving enhanced interpretability and stakeholder-aware validation, making it suitable as an oversight and governance layer for ethically sensitive AI systems.

The recent advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies facilitates a paradigm shift toward automation. Autonomous systems are fully or partially replacing manually crafted ones. At the core of these systems is automated planning. With the advent of powerful planners, automated planning is now applied to many complex and safety-critical domains, including smart energy grids, self-driving cars, warehouse automation, urban and air traffic control, search and rescue operations, surveillance, robotics, and healthcare. There is a growing need to generate explanations of AI-based systems, which is one of the major challenges the planning community faces today. The thesis presents a comprehensive study on explainable artificial intelligence planning (XAIP) for hybrid systems that capture a representation of real-world problems closely.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) transfer visual and textual data into a shared embedding space. In so doing, they enable a wide range of multimodal tasks, while also raising critical questions about the nature of machine 'understanding.' In this paper, we examine how Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods can render the visual reasoning of a VLM - namely, CLIP - legible in art-historical contexts. To this end, we evaluate seven methods, combining zero-shot localization experiments with human interpretability studies. Our results indicate that, while these methods capture some aspects of human interpretation, their effectiveness hinges on the conceptual stability and representational availability of the examined categories.

Explainable artificial intelligence has emerged as a promising field of research to address reliability concerns in artificial intelligence. Despite significant progress in explainable artificial intelligence, few methods provide a systematic way to visualize and understand how classes are confused and how their relationships evolve as training progresses. In this work, we present GRAPHIC, an architecture-agnostic approach that analyzes neural networks on a class level. It leverages confusion matrices derived from intermediate layers using linear classifiers. We interpret these as adjacency matrices of directed graphs, allowing tools from network science to visualize and quantify learning dynamics across training epochs and intermediate layers. GRAPHIC provides insights into linear class separability, dataset issues, and architectural behavior, revealing, for example, similarities between flatfish and man and labeling ambiguities validated in a human study. In summary, by uncovering real confusions, GRAPHIC offers new perspectives on how neural networks learn. The code is available at https://github.com/Johanna-S-Froehlich/GRAPHIC.

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.

Fuzzy systems show strong potential in explainable AI due to their rule-based architecture and linguistic variables. Existing approaches navigate the accuracy-explainability trade-off either through evolutionary multi-objective optimization (MOO), which is computationally expensive, or gradient-based scalarization, which cannot recover non-convex Pareto regions. We propose X-ANFIS, an alternating bi-objective gradient-based optimization scheme for explainable adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Cauchy membership functions are used for stable training under semantically controlled initializations, and a differentiable explainability objective is introduced and decoupled from the performance objective through alternating gradient passes. Validated in approximately 5,000 experiments on nine UCI regression datasets, X-ANFIS consistently achieves target distinguishability while maintaining competitive predictive accuracy, recovering solutions beyond the convex hull of the MOO Pareto front.

The critical need for transparent and trustworthy machine learning in cybersecurity operations drives the development of this integrated Explainable AI (XAI) framework. Our methodology addresses three fundamental challenges in deploying AI for threat detection: handling massive datasets through Strategic Sampling Methodology that preserves class distributions while enabling efficient model development; ensuring experimental rigor via Automated Data Leakage Prevention that systematically identifies and removes contaminated features; and providing operational transparency through Integrated XAI Implementation using SHAP analysis for model-agnostic interpretability across algorithms. Applied to the CIC-IDS2017 dataset, our approach maintains detection efficacy while reducing computational overhead and delivering actionable explanations for security analysts. The framework demonstrates that explainability, computational efficiency, and experimental integrity can be simultaneously achieved, providing a robust foundation for deploying trustworthy AI systems in security operations centers where decision transparency is paramount.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has become popular in the last few years. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) community in general, and the Machine Learning (ML) community in particular, is coming to the realisation that in many applications, for AI to be trusted, it must not only demonstrate good performance in its decisionmaking, but it also must explain these decisions and convince us that it is making the decisions for the right reasons. However, different applications have different requirements on the information required of the underlying AI system in order to convince us that it is worthy of our trust. How do we define these requirements? In this paper, we present three dimensions for categorising the explanatory requirements of different applications. These are Source, Depth and Scope. We focus on the problem of matching up the explanatory requirements of different applications with the capabilities of underlying ML techniques to provide them. We deliberately avoid including aspects of explanation that are already well-covered by the existing literature and we focus our discussion on ML although the principles apply to AI more broadly.

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.

AutoClustering methods aim to automate unsupervised learning tasks, including algorithm selection (AS), hyperparameter optimization (HPO), and pipeline synthesis (PS), by often leveraging meta-learning over dataset meta-features. While these systems often achieve strong performance, their recommendations are often difficult to justify: the influence of dataset meta-features on algorithm and hyperparameter choices is typically not exposed, limiting reliability, bias diagnostics, and efficient meta-feature engineering. This limits reliability and diagnostic insight for further improvements. In this work, we investigate the explainability of the meta-models in AutoClustering. We first review 22 existing methods and organize their meta-features into a structured taxonomy. We then apply a global explainability technique (i.e., Decision Predicate Graphs) to assess feature importance within meta-models from selected frameworks. Finally, we use local explainability tools such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to analyse specific clustering decisions. Our findings highlight consistent patterns in meta-feature relevance, identify structural weaknesses in current meta-learning strategies that can distort recommendations, and provide actionable guidance for more interpretable Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) design. This study therefore offers a practical foundation for increasing decision transparency in unsupervised learning automation.

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.

Previous work has explored the computational complexity of deriving two fundamental types of explanations for ML model predictions: (1) sufficient reasons, which are subsets of input features that, when fixed, determine a prediction, and (2) contrastive reasons, which are subsets of input features that, when modified, alter a prediction. Prior studies have examined these explanations in different contexts, such as non-probabilistic versus probabilistic frameworks and local versus global settings. In this study, we introduce a unified framework for analyzing these explanations, demonstrating that they can all be characterized through the minimization of a unified probabilistic value function. We then prove that the complexity of these computations is influenced by three key properties of the value function: (1) monotonicity, (2) submodularity, and (3) supermodularity - which are three fundamental properties in combinatorial optimization. Our findings uncover some counterintuitive results regarding the nature of these properties within the explanation settings examined. For instance, although the local value functions do not exhibit monotonicity or submodularity/supermodularity whatsoever, we demonstrate that the global value functions do possess these properties. This distinction enables us to prove a series of novel polynomial-time results for computing various explanations with provable guarantees in the global explainability setting, across a range of ML models that span the interpretability spectrum, such as neural networks, decision trees, and tree ensembles. In contrast, we show that even highly simplified versions of these explanations become NP-hard to compute in the corresponding local explainability setting.

To enable human oversight, agentic AI systems often provide a trace of reasoning and action steps. Designing traces to have an informative, but not overwhelming, level of detail remains a critical challenge. In three user studies on a Computer User Agent, we investigate the utility of basic action traces for verification, explore three alternatives via design probes, and test a novel interface's impact on error finding in question-answering tasks. As expected, we find that current practices are cumbersome, limiting their efficacy. Conversely, our proposed design reduced the time participants spent finding errors. However, although participants reported higher levels of confidence in their decisions, their final accuracy was not meaningfully improved. To this end, our study surfaces challenges for human verification of agentic systems, including managing built-in assumptions, users' subjective and changing correctness criteria, and the shortcomings, yet importance, of communicating the agent's process.

Foundation models are increasingly embedded in social robots, mediating not only what they say and do but also how they adapt to users over time. This shift renders traditional ``one-size-fits-all'' explanation strategies especially problematic: generic justifications are now wrapped around behaviour produced by models trained on vast, heterogeneous, and opaque datasets. We argue that ethical, user-adapted explainability must be treated as a core design objective for foundation-model-driven social robotics. We first identify open challenges around explainability and ethical concerns that arise when both adaptation and explanation are delegated to foundation models. Building on this analysis, we propose four recommendations for moving towards user-adapted, modality-aware, and co-designed explanation strategies grounded in smaller, fairer datasets. An illustrative use case of an LLM-driven socially assistive robot demonstrates how these recommendations might be instantiated in a sensitive, real-world domain.

In geophysics, hydrocarbon prospect risking involves assessing the risks associated with hydrocarbon exploration by integrating data from various sources. Machine learning-based classifiers trained on tabular data have been recently used to make faster decisions on these prospects. The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of such models has led to the emergence of explainable AI (XAI). LIME and SHAP are two such examples of these XAI methods which try to generate explanations of a particular decision by ranking the input features in terms of importance. However, explanations of the same scenario generated by these two different explanation strategies have shown to disagree or be different, particularly for complex data. This is because the definitions of "importance" and "relevance" differ for different explanation strategies. Thus, grounding these ranked features using theoretically backed causal ideas of necessity and sufficiency can prove to be a more reliable and robust way to improve the trustworthiness of the concerned explanation strategies.We propose a unified framework to generate counterfactuals as well as quantify necessity and sufficiency and use these to perform a robustness evaluation of the explanations provided by LIME and SHAP on high dimensional structured prospect risking data. This robustness test gives us deeper insights into the models capabilities to handle erronous data and which XAI module works best in pair with which model for our dataset for hydorcarbon indication.

Healthcare systems around the world are grappling with issues such as inefficient diagnostics, rising costs, and limited access to specialists. These challenges often contribute to delays in treatment and poorer health outcomes. Most existing AI and deep learning based health assessment systems offer limited interactivity and transparency, reducing their usefulness for user-centered health support. This research introduces a conversational chatbot powered by a Large Language Model (LLM), using GPT-4o, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and explainable AI techniques. The chatbot engages users in a dynamic conversation to extract and normalize symptoms while identifying and ranking potential health conditions through similarity matching and adaptive questioning. Using Chain-of-Thought prompting, the system also provides more transparent explanations of its reasoning process. When evaluated against traditional machine learning models, including Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, SVM, Random Forest, and KNN using both TF-IDF and CountVectorizer feature extraction, the proposed LLM-based system achieved a Top-1 accuracy of 90% and a Top-3 accuracy of 100%. The system was additionally evaluated through a cross-sectional expert evaluation involving 17 physicians across all 14 conditions, with the results indicating generally favorable assessments of conversational quality, early diagnostic plausibility, and safety-related criteria. These findings demonstrate the potential of explainable conversational AI as a health and well-being support tool for early symptom assessment. However, the proposed system is not intended for clinical diagnosis or clinical decision-making, and further validation would be required before any use in healthcare practice.

Understanding the economic intent of Ethereum transactions is critical for user safety, yet current tools expose only raw on-chain data or surface-level intent, leading to widespread ``blind signing'' (approving transactions without understanding them). Through interviews with 16 Web3 users, we find that effective explanations should be structured, risk-aware, and grounded at the token-flow level. Motivated by these findings, we formulate TxSum, a new domain-grounded NLP task for DeFi transaction explanation, and construct a dataset of 187 complex Ethereum transactions with 2,375 token-flow annotations and transaction-level summaries. We further introduce MATEX, a grounded multi-agent framework for high-stakes transaction explanation. It selectively retrieves external knowledge under uncertainty and audits explanations against raw traces to improve token-flow-level factual consistency. MATEX achieves the strongest overall explanation quality, especially on micro-level factuality and intent quality. It improves user comprehension on complex transactions from 52.9% to 76.5% over the strongest baseline and raises malicious-transaction rejection from 36.0% to 88.0%, while maintaining a low false-rejection rate on benign transactions.

This work presents a requirement analysis for collaborative dialogues among medical experts and an inquiry dialogue game based on this analysis for incorporating explainability into multiagent system design. The game allows experts with different knowledge bases to collaboratively make recommendations while generating rich traces of the reasoning process through combining explanation-based illocutionary forces in an inquiry dialogue. The dialogue game was implemented as a prototype web-application and evaluated against the specification through a formative user study. The user study confirms that the dialogue game meets the needs for collaboration among medical experts. It also provides insights on the real-life value of dialogue-based communication tools for the medical community.

Perturbation-based explainability methods face criticism due to their reliance on out-of-distribution mutants. This raises doubts about the quality of the explanations. In this paper, we introduce a novel forward pass paradigm, Activation-Deactivation (AD), which obviates the need for perturbation of the input. AD replaces perturbation of input features with switching off parts of the model corresponding to to the intended perturbations. We implement ConvAD, an AD approximation algorithm for CNNs. ConvAD is a drop-in mechanism that can be easily added to any trained CNN and, without any additional training, generates more robust and more transferable explanations. We provide evaluation results across multiple architectures, datasets, methods and perturbation strategies, demonstrating the superior quality of ConvAD compared to the SOTA.

One of the most pressing challenges in artificial intelligence is to make models more transparent to their users. Recently, explainable artificial intelligence has come up with numerous methods to tackle this challenge. A promising avenue is to use concept-based explanations, that is, high-level concepts instead of plain feature importance scores. Among this class of methods, Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs, Kim et al., 2018) stand out as one of the main protagonists. One interesting aspect of CAVs is that their computation requires sampling random examples from the train set. Therefore, the actual vectors obtained may vary depending on the randomness of this sampling. In this paper, we propose a fine-grained theoretical analysis of CAV construction in order to quantify their variability. Our results, confirmed by experiments on several real-life datasets of four different modalities, point to an universal result: the variance of CAVs declines roughly as $1/N$, where $N$ is the number of random examples. Based on this, we give practical recommendations for a resource-efficient application of the method.

The success of recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) models has been accompanied by the opacity of their internal mechanisms, due notably to the use of deep neural networks. In order to understand these internal mechanisms and explain the output of these AI models, a set of methods have been proposed, grouped under the domain of eXplainable AI (XAI). This paper focuses on a sub-domain of XAI, called eXplainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL), which aims to explain the actions of an agent that has learned by reinforcement learning. We propose an intuitive taxonomy based on two questions "What" and "How". The first question focuses on the target that the method explains, while the second relates to the way the explanation is provided. We use this taxonomy to provide a state-of-the-art review of over 250 papers. In addition, we present a set of domains close to XRL, which we believe should get attention from the community. Finally, we identify some needs for the field of XRL.

While sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have generated significant excitement, a series of negative results have added to skepticism about their usefulness. Here, we establish a conceptual distinction that reconciles competing narratives surrounding SAEs. We argue that even if SAEs may be less effective for acting on known concepts, SAEs are especially powerful tools for discovering unknown concepts. This distinction separates existing negative results from positive results, and suggests several classes of SAE applications. Specifically, we outline use cases for SAEs in (i) ML interpretability, explainability, fairness, auditing, and safety, and (ii) social and health sciences.

Concept-based explanations help users understand vision models through recognizable visual patterns. However, existing methods often rely on correlational signals without directly validating which image cues support prediction-relevant internal features. To this end, we introduce VisionLogic, a post-hoc framework that grounds these features in visual concepts through intervention-based validation. VisionLogic first identifies compact sets of features whose contributions reproduce the model's original prediction. It then represents their activation states as predicates using class-specific thresholds. An iterative refinement procedure grounds these predicates in visual regions through ablation tests. A region is accepted when its removal deactivates the corresponding predicate, linking the feature's numerical role to visual evidence in the input. The same predicates allow us to examine how features are activated, selected, and reused across images and classes. Across CNNs and vision transformers on ImageNet-1k, we find that only a few features are selected to explain each prediction, and frequently active features are not always selected. In a large-scale human evaluation with 465 participants, VisionLogic significantly improves participants' understanding of model behavior over established methods ACE and CRAFT. Code is available at https://github.com/allengeng123/VisionLogic.

Uncertainty-aware explanation methods often produce several alternatives for the same prediction. Selecting among them requires a policy for balancing prediction confidence, uncertainty, and application constraints. This paper presents a framework for applying such policies to a fixed set of generated explanations. Candidates are characterised by uncertainty change, prediction direction, and, when available, interval position relative to a decision boundary. The framework combines these properties with eligibility rules, optional bidirectional Pareto screening, and policy-aware ranking. A fictitious prostate-cancer example illustrates how different explanatory purposes lead to different selections from the same candidate set. We instantiate the framework with Calibrated Explanations for classification, thresholded regression, and plain regression. Across 41 benchmark datasets, mean candidate counts range from 11.57 to 21.75 for single-feature explanations and from $29.48$ to $69.53$ when conjunctions are included. Equal-weight and confidence-only policies yield an average selection-disagreement rate of $28.7\%$ while favouring the same confidence direction. A supporting $δ$-CLUE experiment demonstrates use with a second generator. By making the selection policy explicit, the framework allows applications to compare and prioritise explanations according to their intended use.

Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act. In this context, the black-box nature of machine learning models limits the use of conventional avenues of approach towards certifying complex technical systems. As a potential solution, methods to give insights into this black-box - devised in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI) - could be used. In this study, the potential and shortcomings of such methods for the purpose of safe AI development and certification are discussed in 15 qualitative interviews with experts out of the areas of (X)AI and certification. We find that XAI methods can be a helpful asset for safe AI development, as they can show biases and failures of ML-models, but since certification relies on comprehensive and correct information about technical systems, their impact is expected to be limited.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, a major contribution to the history of epistemology, proposes a table of categories to elucidate the structure of the a priori principles underlying human judgment. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology claims to simulate or replicate human judgment. To evaluate this claim, it is necessary to examine whether AI judgments exhibit the essential characteristics of human judgment. This paper investigates the unexplainability of AI judgments through the lens of Kant's theory of judgment. Drawing on Kant's four logical forms - quantity, quality, relation, and modality - this study identifies what may be called AI's uncertainty, a condition in which different forms of judgment become entangled. In particular, with regard to modality, this study argues that the Softmax function forcibly reframes AI judgments as possibility judgments. Furthermore, drawing on Kant's account of definition, this paper argues that no definitive criterion exists for verifying functional implementation. Moreover, fluent linguistic behavior may create the appearance of functional implementation even when important functions remain absent.