Explainable Artificial Intelligence

Child Sexual Abuse Imagery (CSAI) classification systems are needed solutions for lessening the psychological impacts often felt by law enforcement agents responsible for evaluating these materials and for efficient removal of these materials from the web. However, due to the nature of the task, researching and developing such systems is not a trivial endeavor. The images are highly sensitive, and the related datasets are under restrictive access regimes, which means most studies in the area are not reproducible or distributable and are therefore hard to compare and validate. More concerning still, most models for this task today lack an aspect often desired by law enforcement agents: explainability. In this paper, we apply an ensemble of Proxy Tasks -- tasks that correlate to CSAI classification -- yielding improvements in reproducibility, explainability, and security for distribution. This concept is applied for the first time to real CSAI, with a novel selection of relevant Proxy Tasks (selected from the CSAI literature) and training adaptations to the original framework. Our final model achieves competitive results, yielding 91.9% balanced accuracy on the RCPD dataset with the best Proxy Task combination. We furthermore contrast these results with the best-in-class representation learning model, DINO, and show that our ensemble improves accuracy and provides explanations for its classification results, a feature that a single deep learning model can seldom provide.

Can financial news reliably predict short-term stock movements? Despite advances in large language models, this question remains unresolved. We revisit this problem using a zero-shot natural language processing framework, investigating whether models can extract actionable signals from financial news without domain-specific training. We design a structured pipeline that combines zero-shot natural language inference with temporal aggregation, explicitly modelling recency and event-dependent impact horizons when integrating information across articles. To address the need for transparency in high-stakes settings, we introduce a multi-layered explainability framework that links predictions to token-level, article-level, and aggregate evidence, and produces grounded natural language rationales. Across multiple models and prediction horizons, we find that zero-shot approaches consistently fail to outperform simple baselines, with particularly weak performance on negative movements, suggesting deeper structural limitations in mapping news sentiment to short-term price dynamics. However, explainability signals reliably distinguish between trustworthy and unreliable predictions, offering practical value even when accuracy is limited. These findings highlight the limits of zero-shot financial NLP and motivate a shift toward decision-support systems that prioritise transparency and uncertainty awareness. Code: https://github.com/alimert05/zero-shot-stock-xai

As artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models become integral to network operations, their lack of transparency poses a significant barrier to operator trust. Existing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques often fail to bridge this gap for non-specialists, producing technical outputs that are difficult to translate into actionable insights. This paper presents a framework specifically designed to address this shortcoming. It leverages a moderately sized large language model (LLM) and extends beyond the standard use of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) feature influence values. The framework employs a structured prompt enriched with mutual feature interaction data to generate human-understandable natural language explanations. To validate our framework, we performed an empirical evaluation on an optical quality of transmission (QoT) estimation use case with human evaluators. We collected independent performance evaluations from specialists, which showed a high inter-evaluator agreement. Compared to a state-of-the-art baseline that uses only SHAP feature influence values in a straightforward prompt, our approach improves the explanation usefulness and scope by 12.2% and 6.2%, while achieving 97.5% correctness.

The growing complexity of self-adaptive and self-organising systems, fuelled by advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), has made them increasingly difficult to understand and trust. While Explainable AI aims to provide insight into AI decision-making, a more advanced goal is for systems to explain themselves - an ability referred to as Self-Explainability (SX). This article presents a systematic literature review on SX, analysing existing approaches, including their domains, targets, and evaluation methods. The review develops a unified definition and taxonomy of SX and introduces Levels of Self-Explainability, providing a framework for positioning current and future research. Our results show that most SX approaches remain conceptual, with few practical implementations. Moreover, there is currently no formal or de facto standard for evaluating SX, highlighting a major research gap. This work thus establishes a foundation and roadmap for advancing Self-Explainability in complex systems.

As Vision-Language Models are increasingly deployed in safety-critical applications, the trustworthiness of their explanations becomes crucial. Explainable AI (XAI) methods for Vision-Language Models often suffer from semantic hallucination, where attribution maps highlight prominent image regions even when prompted with incorrect text descriptions (e.g., highlighting a dog when prompted ``cat''). Although this problem is widespread, a formal mathematical analysis of XAI methods and CLIP embeddings is largely missing in the literature. We demonstrate that this phenomenon is not specific to a single architecture but is a fundamental consequence of Linear Semantic Leakage in high-dimensional embedding spaces. We propose a unified theoretical framework, Linear Semantic Attribution (LSA), which generalizes across discriminative methods. We introduce OSP, a geometric intervention that utilizes the residual property of OMP to disentangle unique semantic signals from shared concepts. We prove theoretically and demonstrate empirically that OSP minimizes hallucination by orthogonalizing the query vector against distractor concepts, rendering the attribution model blind to shared features while preserving fidelity for correct prompts. Our code is available at: https://github.com/emirhanbilgic/Orthogonal-Semantic-Projection

The growing demand for transparency in automated decision-making has propelled eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to the forefront of machine learning research. In computer vision, however, existing explanation methods often prioritize end-user accessibility at the expense of formal guarantees, leaving a critical gap between practical utility and theoretical rigor. In this paper, we address this gap by introducing OPTIMUS, a novel framework for generating concept-based visual explanations for deep classification models. OPTIMUS explanations take the form of visual heatmaps that not only remain interpretable to end users, but are grounded in the well-established theory of prime implicants, providing formal guarantees that have been largely absent from existing saliency-based methods. Specifically, OPTIMUS explanations satisfy two desirable properties: sufficiency, ensuring that the highlighted concepts provably guarantee the classifier's prediction, and minimality, ensuring that no strict subset of those concepts retains this guarantee. Together, these properties yield explanations that are both logically tight and visually coherent. We validate our approach on a visual classification benchmark, demonstrating that OPTIMUS heatmaps naturally and faithfully surface the decision-relevant concepts underlying model predictions.

To understand how a neural network (NN) functions and makes predictions, it has become increasingly clear that analyzing only the input domain is insufficient -- one must also examine its internal inference mechanisms to capture the complete picture. To explain the internal inference mechanisms of such models, it is essential to analyze the importance of latent representations for a given task. In this paper, we propose the \emph{normalized relevance measure} (NRM) framework -- a novel general explanation procedure that attributes relevance to \emph{arbitrary sets of neurons across layers of arbitrary architectures}. In the NRM framework, relevance of selected neurons is explicitly defined as a normalized signed measure, constructed using simple operations -- marginalization and conditioning based on additive and multiplicative laws -- in analogy to the probability measures. The normalization property further guarantees comparability across layers. The NRM framework subsumes existing propagation-based explanation algorithms by explicitly identifying the underlying quantity being computed. We demonstrate the utility of the framework in computer vision applications, where joint relevance analysis across multiple layers reveals key information flows in VGG16 networks. Overall, the NRM framework provides a general, mathematically grounded approach to understanding how modern NNs propagate information, offering a versatile and broadly applicable foundation for explainable artificial intelligence.

Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) in Internet of Things (IoT) environments face significant challenges due to data heterogeneity, lack of labeled data, and limited model interpretability. Federated Learning (FL) offers a privacy-preserving solution; however, existing approaches such as SOH-FL suffer from two key limitations: reliance on a manually tuned aggregation parameter γ and lack of explainability in model predictions. In this paper, we propose XAI-SOH-FL, an enhanced framework that integrates adaptive aggregation and explainable artificial intelligence into the SOH-FL paradigm. First, we introduce a dynamic γ selection mechanism based on similarity thresholding, enabling the aggregation process to adapt to evolving data distributions. Second, Bayesian Optimization is employed to automatically determine optimal γ values, eliminating the need for manual tuning. Third, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) is incorporated to provide feature-level interpretability for intrusion detection decisions. Experimental evaluation on the CICIDS2017 dataset demonstrates that the proposed approach achieves an accuracy of 94.12% and an F1-score of 0.92, outperforming the baseline SOH-FL model while converging in fewer communication rounds. Furthermore, SHAP-based analysis reveals that flow-level features such as Flow Duration and Packet Length significantly influence model predictions. These results indicate that XAI-SOH-FL provides an effective balance between accuracy, adaptability, and interpretability in heterogeneous IoT environments.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent the majority of firms in most economies and often face financial constraints and higher vulnerability to financial distress. Predicting SME default is therefore crucial for financial institutions, policymakers, and researchers. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have improved predictive performance in credit risk modeling. Yet, the limited interpretability of complex models raises concerns regarding transparency and regulatory compliance. This study investigates SME's default predictors and applies explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to them. Using a panel of 50,718 Italian SME over the period 2015-2024, we compare traditional econometric approaches with several ML classifiers. The empirical results show that ML models significantly outperform the traditional logistic regression benchmark in terms of Balanced Accuracy and PR-AUC. To address the interpretability challenge, we introduce DEXiRE-EVO, a novel evolutionary rule extraction framework that combines multi-objective optimization with the Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU) explainability method. The extracted rules reveal economically meaningful patterns associated with SME financial distress, highlighting the roles of weak internal liquidity generation, internal capital erosion, high leverage, and operational inefficiency. Additionally, contextual macroeconomic conditions and the persistence of financial instability contribute to identifying high-risk firms. In general, the results show that combining ML with evolutionary rule extraction can improve both predictive performance and interpretability in credit risk modeling, thus supporting more transparent, data-driven decision-making in financial environments.

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.

Explainable AI (XAI) helps users interpret model behavior and identify potential faults. Agentic XAI systems use Large Language Models (LLMs) to make explanations more accessible through natural-language interaction, but they can also produce plausible yet unfaithful explanations. This risk arises because unreliable XAI outputs for complex models can be amplified by LLMs and mislead users. We propose Faithful Agentic XAI (FAX), a framework that improves explanation faithfulness through explicit verification. FAX decomposes draft explanations into claims and cross-checks them against inherently faithful tools, filtering unsupported or contradictory claims before final generation. We also introduce CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, an open-world reinforcement learning benchmark with complex policies, diverse goals, and challenging scenarios for assessing model-specific faithfulness. On CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, FAX improves simulation faithfulness from 0.20 for the strongest baseline to 0.46 while maintaining high informativeness, relevance, and fluency. On three tabular benchmarks, FAX performs competitively with prior Agentic XAI baselines, but our analysis shows that these settings can conflate task accuracy with model-specific faithfulness. These findings show that explicit verification is essential for faithful Agentic XAI and that that faithfulness benchmarks must be designed to test explanations against the behavior of the target model itself.

Online recruitment platforms require recommendation methods capable of retrieving relevant job opportunities from large and heterogeneous collections of job postings. Keyword-based search is efficient and interpretable, but it may fail to retrieve relevant postings when equivalent roles are expressed using different terminology. This study presents a metadata-driven job recommendation system that combines TF-IDF lexical matching, Sentence-BERT semantic retrieval, query-aware filtering, optional Cross-Encoder re-ranking, and explanation generation. The proposed system utilizes structured metadata fields including job title, company name, location, seniority level, job function, employment type, and industry without relying on full job descriptions or user interaction histories. Experiments conducted on a cleaned LinkedIn job posting dataset containing 31262 records demonstrate that the best hybrid configuration achieved a Precision at 10 score of 0.8032 and an nDCG at 10 score of 0.9496. Under the internal evaluation protocol, Cross-Encoder re-ranking improved Precision at 10 from 0.7896 to 0.7948 and nDCG at 10 from 0.9666 to 0.9739. These findings indicate that lexical and semantic retrieval techniques can be effectively combined to provide explainable job recommendations when only structured metadata is available.

Prior work shows that Large Language Models (LLMs) can transform Explainable AI (XAI) outputs into Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) that score highly on quality metrics such as plausibility, coherence, and comprehensibility. But does explanation quality translate to practical usefulness? We investigate this question in a time-series energy forecasting domain through five controlled experiments (2,730 judgments across 60 test instances), each operationalising a distinct facet of usefulness studied in the XAI literature. Holding NLE quality constant at the high levels established by a prior factorial study, we find that NLEs do not improve task accuracy on any of the five tasks, while inflating self-reported confidence. A placebic control shows that this confidence boost is driven by text presence rather than content. In an out-of-distribution detection task, NLEs reduce the LLM judge's ability to flag unreliable predictions, providing false reassurance that masks model failure. We characterise these findings as the Quality-Usefulness Gap and argue that evaluation of the XAI-to-NLE pipeline must extend beyond text-quality metrics to downstream task performance.

Predictive modelling is important for health data analysis and data-driven clinical decision-making. However, predictive studies are challenging to design optimally by hand when tens or even hundreds of features require selection, transformation, or interaction modelling. While complex machine learning models offer high performance, their "black-box" nature limits the clinical trust, transparency, and interpretability required for decision-making. We developed and evaluated an Exploratory AI Recommender that provides data-driven recommendations to improve predictive performance of existing interpretable statistical models. The developed framework uses flexible AI modelling to capture complex data patterns and explainable AI techniques to translate the patterns into three recommendation types: feature exclusion, non-linear terms, and feature interactions. We evaluated the framework by comparing predictive performance of a baseline (i.e., no interactions or non-linear terms) Cox Proportional Hazards (CPH) model against an augmented CPH incorporating recommendations suggested by our method. The primary analysis predicts the time to the first occurrence of a fall or related injury in 245,614 patients. Our method recommended excluding 23 features, including non-linear terms for two features, and including 221 suggested feature interactions. The C-index improved from 0.805 (95% CI 0.798-0.812) to 0.815 (95% CI 0.809-0.822), and so did calibration (intercept: -0.006 to 0.003; slope: 1.063 to 0.950). All recommendations were supported by existing literature. The method also proved effective on two additional public datasets, demonstrating wider applicability. The proposed Exploratory AI Recommender demonstrates the potential of explainable AI and data-driven study design to improve the process of developing, and the performance of high-dimensional transparent predictive models.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods identify which features are relevant to a model's predictions but often fail to clarify why certain decisions are made. In this work, we present a novel method that integrates causality with argument-based reasoning to explain why models may be making predictions. Our approach first identifies causal relationships among variables using causal discovery methods and then translates these into a Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) to represent supportive and opposing interactions among features. By using semi-stable semantics, we find extensions of features that explain why certain outcomes may have been chosen. We demonstrate our method on two benchmark datasets and compare its results against standard post-hoc explainability approaches.

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques aim to provide insights into predictive models and enhance user performance, yet they often fall short of these expectations. Conversational XAI assistants promise to overcome such limitations, but empirical evidence on their impact on objective performance measures remains limited. We propose an experimental design for evaluating explanation assistance through prediction accuracy, model understanding, and error identification. Using an explainable-by-design prediction model, we create conditions where users can outperform the model by identifying and compensating for systematic errors. We compare conversational assistance against Q&A-based assistance to assess which better supports users in working with model explanations. Preliminary results from testing our experimental design show that participants (N=42) in both treatments significantly outperformed the model but reveal no performance differences between assistance types and modest engagement overall. These findings inform refinements for our planned full study, including enhanced engagement interventions and investigation of the mechanisms driving improved predictions.

Concept-based Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) interprets deep learning models using human-understandable visual features (e.g., textures or object parts) by linking internal representations to class predictions, thereby bridging the gap between low-level image data and high-level semantics. A major challenge, however, is the reliance on large sets of labeled images to represent each concept, which limits scalability. In this work, we investigate the use of zero-shot Text-to-Image (T2I) generative models as a source of synthetic concept datasets for concept-based XAI methods. Specifically, we generate concepts using predefined prompts and evaluate their faithfulness to real ones through four complementary analyses: (1) comparing synthetic vs. real concept images via concept representation similarity; (2) evaluating their intra-similarity by comparing pairs of subsets of the same concept with progressively increasing size; (3) evaluating their performance for downstream explanation tasks using relevant class images; (4) evaluating how removing a concept from tested class images affects explanations of generated concepts. While current T2I generative models promise a shortcut to concept-based XAI, our study highlights challenges and raises open questions about the use of synthetic data generated by zero-shot pipelines in model analyses. The resulting dataset is available at https://github.com/DataSciencePolimi/ZeroShot-T2I-Concepts.

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques are increasingly important for the validation and responsible use of modern deep learning models, but are difficult to evaluate due to the lack of good ground-truth to compare against. We propose a framework that serves as a quantifiable metric for the quality of XAI methods, based on continuous input perturbation. Our metric formally considers the sufficiency and necessity of the attributed information to the model's decision-making, and we illustrate a range of cases where it aligns better with human intuitions of explanation quality than do existing metrics. To exploit the properties of this metric, we also propose a novel XAI method, considering the case where we fine-tune a model using a differentiable approximation of the metric as a supervision signal. The result is an adapter module that can be trained on top of any black-box model to output causal explanations of the model's decision process, without degrading model performance. We show that the explanations generated by this method outperform those of competing XAI techniques according to a number of quantifiable metrics.

Deep Neural Networks have become the dominant solution for Autonomous Driving perception, but their opacity conflicts with emerging Trustworthy AI guidelines and complicates safety assurance, debugging, and human oversight. While theoretical frameworks for safe and Explainable AI (XAI) exist, concrete implementations of Trustworthy AI for 3D scene understanding remain scarce. We address this gap by proposing a Trustworthy AI perception module that is remarkably robust, integrates faithful explainability, and calibrated uncertainty estimates. Building on a transformer-based detector, we derive explanation from the attention mechanism at inference time and validate their faithfulness using perturbation-based consistency tests. We further integrate an uncertainty estimation and calibration module, and apply robustness-enhancing training methods. Experiments show faithful saliency behavior, improved robustness, and well-calibrated uncertainty estimates. Finally, we deploy these Trustworthy AI elements in a prototype vehicle and provide an XAI Interface that visualizes documentation artifacts, model uncertainty state, and saliency maps, demonstrating the feasibility of trustworthy perception monitoring in real time. Supplementary materials are available at https://tillbeemelmanns.github.io/trustworthy_ai/ .

Machine learning systems increasingly make life-changing decisions about individuals, such as loan approvals, hiring, and cheating detection, raising a pressing question: how can individuals respond to negative decisions made by these opaque systems? While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has largely focused on algorithmic recourse -- helping individuals change their features to obtain a desired outcome -- the parallel problem of algorithmic contestability -- helping individuals review and correct erroneous algorithmic decisions -- has received far less attention, despite its central ethical and legal importance. We trace this neglect to the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability as an algorithmic problem. To address it, we propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse: contestability starts from the presumption that a decision may be incorrect and focuses on identifying evidence to challenge and potentially overturn it, whereas recourse assumes the decision is valid and instead provides pathways for changing it. We show that standard XAI explanations, such as counterfactuals, LIME, or Anchors, even when combined with human intuitions about decision continuity or monotonicity, reveal only errors in the neighborhood of the individual, but provide insufficient grounds for overturning the decision at hand. Going thus beyond traditional XAI, we identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence. We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable. Finally, we analyze how existing EU legislation connects to our framework and argue that individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.

During thDuring the last few years, the term Mechanistic Interpretability, a specific area, under the umbrella of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), has been introduced, to explain the decisions made by complex machine learning (ML) models in critical systems like UAV intrusion detection systems (UAVIDS). In this paper, we apply best-practices for data pre-processing and examine a wide range of tree-ensembles, deep neural networks, hybrid stacking models and the latest ensemble neural networks to detect intrusions in UAV, with stratified 10-fold cross validation. With our top-performing model, XGBoost, we proceed to Shapley Additive explanations (SHAP), to analyze the global and local feature importances and understand which features, each attack targets, to mimic normal traffic and where the misclassifications occur. Furthermore a distribution analysis follows, by visually comparing violin plots and the curves of kernel density estimations. With the Westfall-Young permutation test for multiple comparisons, the Bandwidth optimization of the KDEs and the selection of Jensen-Shannon Distance for the test, we discover the true causes of false predictions, observed in Wormhole and Blackhole attacks in UAVIDS-2025. The findings provide robust, reliable and explainable models for UAV intrusion detection, along with statistical insights, which capture and clarify the masked nature of the attacks, regarding the challenge of Density Support Intersection, between these attacks, in this dataset.

Financial institutions increasingly require AI explanations that are persistent, cross-validated across methods, and conversationally accessible to human decision-makers. We present an architecture for human-centered explainable AI in financial sentiment analysis that combines three contributions. First, we treat XAI artifacts -- LIME feature attributions, occlusion-based word importance scores, and saliency heatmaps -- as persistent, searchable objects in distributed S3-compatible storage with structured metadata and natural-language summaries, enabling semantic retrieval over explanation history and automatic index reconstruction after system failures. Second, we enable multi-method explanation triangulation, where a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) assistant compares and synthesizes results from multiple XAI methods applied to the same prediction, allowing users to assess explanation robustness through natural-language dialogue. Third, we evaluate the faithfulness of generated explanations using automated checks over grounding completeness, hallucinated claims, and method-attribution behavior. We demonstrate the architecture on an EXTRA-BRAIN financial sentiment analysis pipeline using FinBERT predictions and present evaluation results showing that constrained prompting reduces hallucination rate by 36% and increases method-attribution citations by 73% compared to naive prompting. We discuss implications for trustworthy, human-centered AI services in regulated financial environments.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being incorporated into scientific research workflows with the potential to enhance efficiency in tasks such as document analysis, question answering (Q&A), and literature search. However, system outputs are often difficult to verify, lack transparency in their generation and remain prone to errors. Suitable benchmarks are needed to document and evaluate arising issues. Nevertheless, existing benchmarking approaches are not adequately capturing human-centered criteria such as usability, interpretability, and integration into research workflows. To address this gap, the present work proposes and applies a benchmarking framework combining human-centered and computer-centered metrics to evaluate AI-based Q&A and literature review tools for research use. The findings suggest that Q&A tools can offer valuable overviews and generally accurate summaries; however, they are not always reliable for precise information extraction. Explainable AI (xAI) accuracy was particularly low, meaning highlighted source passages frequently failed to correspond to generated answers. This shifted the burden of validation back onto the researcher. Literature review tools supported exploratory searches but showed low reproducibility, limited transparency regarding chosen sources and databases, and inconsistent source quality, making them unsuitable for systematic reviews. A comparison of these tool groups reveals a similar pattern: while AI tools can enhance efficiency in the early stages of the research workflow and shallow tasks, their outputs still require human verification. The findings underscore the importance of explainability features to enhance transparency, verification efficiency and careful integration of AI tools into researchers' workflows. Further, human-centered evaluation remains an important concern to ensure practical applicability.

Machine learning algorithms are being used in high-stakes decisions, including those in criminal justice, healthcare, credit, and employment. The research community has responded with two largely independent research fields: \emph{algorithmic fairness}, which targets equitable outcomes, and \emph{explainable AI} (XAI), which targets interpretable reasoning. This survey identifies and maps a novel blind spot at their intersection, which is a model that can satisfy every standard fairness criterion in its outputs while being profoundly unfair in its \emph{reasoning process}. We refer to this as the procedural bias, and mitigating it requires treating the fairness of explanations as a distinct object of scientific study. To our knowledge, we provide the first unified theoretical and literature review of this emerging field and elucidate the drawbacks of post-hoc explainers in certifying explanation fairness. Our central contribution is a \emph{conditional invariance framework} formalizing explanation fairness as the requirement that explanations should be indifferent regardless of the protected attributes $P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = a) = P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = b)$ for all task-relevant $x$, a single principle from which all existing explanation fairness metrics emerge as partial operationalizations. We introduce a seven-dimensional taxonomy, identify three generative mechanisms of explanation inequity (representation-driven, explanation-model mismatch, actionability-driven), and propose a canonical six-step evaluation workflow for operationalizing explanation fairness audits in practice.

We establish, from the point of view of Explainable AI (XAI), connections between Consistency-Based Diagnosis (CBD), on one side, and Actual Causality and Causal Responsibility, on the other. CBD has received little attention from the XAI community. Connections between these two areas could have a fruitful impact on XAI and Explainable Data Management.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly rec ognized as essential for deploying machine learning systems in safety critical environments. In Automatic Target Recognition (ATR), where models operate on image, video, radar, and multisensor data, high pre dictive performance alone is insufficient. Model decisions must also be interpretable, reliable, and suitable for validation. This paper presents a structured evaluation of explainability methods in the context of safety-critical ATR systems: We identify major XAI paradigms, including saliency-based, attention-based, and surrogate ap proaches, as well as recent detection-aware extensions. Based on this, we formalize explainability as an assurance-oriented assessment problem, introduce a taxonomy, and assess these methods with respect to four key dimensions: interpretability, robustness, vulnerability to manipula tion, and suitability for validation and verification. The analysis identifies systematic limitations of current post-hoc explanation methods. In par ticular, we derive critical failure modes such as spurious explanations, instability under perturbations, and overtrust induced by visually con vincing outputs. These findings indicate that widely used XAI techniques may be insufficient for safety-critical deployment. Finally, we discuss implications for ATR systems and outline directions toward more robust, causally grounded, and physically informed explain ability methods. Our results emphasize the need to move beyond visually plausible explanations toward approaches that support reliable decision making and system-level assurance.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.

Agentic data science (ADS) systems are rapidly improving their capability to autonomously analyze, fit, and interpret data, potentially moving towards a future where agents conduct the vast majority of data-science work. However, current ADS systems use statistical tools designed to be interpretable by humans, rather than interpretable by agents. To address this, we introduce Agentic-imodels, an agentic autoresearch loop that evolves data-science tools designed to be interpretable by agents. Specifically, it develops a library of scikit-learn-compatible regressors for tabular data that are optimized for both predictive performance and a novel LLM-based interpretability metric. The metric measures a suite of LLM-graded tests that probe whether a fitted model's string representation is "simulatable" by an LLM, i.e. whether the LLM can answer questions about the model's behavior by reading its string output alone. We find that the evolved models jointly improve predictive performance and agent-facing interpretability, generalizing to new datasets and new interpretability tests. Furthermore, these evolved models improve downstream end-to-end ADS, increasing performance for Copilot CLI, Claude Code, and Codex on the BLADE benchmark by up to 73%

The application of computer vision is gradually increasing across various domains. They employ deep learning models with a black-box nature. Without the ability to explain the behavior of neural networks, especially their decision-making processes, it is not possible to recognize their efficiency, predict system failures, or effectively implement them in real-world applications. Due to the inevitable use of deep learning in fully automated driving systems, many methods have been proposed to explain their behavior; however, they suffer from flawed reasoning and unreliable metrics, which have prevented a comprehensive understanding of complex models in autonomous vehicles and hindered the development of truly reliable systems. In this study, we propose a multi-scale attention-based model in which driving decisions are fed into the reasoning component to provide case-specific explanations for each decision simultaneously. For quantitative evaluation of our model's performance, we employ the F1-score metric, and also proposed a new metric called the Joint F1 score to demonstrate the accurate and reliable performance of the model in terms of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In addition to the BDD-OIA dataset, the nu-AR dataset is utilized to further validate the generalization capability and robustness of the proposed network. The results demonstrate the superiority of our reasoning network over the classic and state-of-the-art models.

We provide a causal analysis of Binary Spiking Neural Networks (BSNNs) to explain their behavior. We formally define a BSNN and represent its spiking activity as a binary causal model. Thanks to this causal representation, we are able to explain the output of the network by leveraging logic-based methods. In particular, we show that we can successfully use a SAT as well as a SMT solver to compute abductive explanations from this binary causal model. To illustrate our approach, we trained the BSNN on the standard MNIST dataset and applied our SAT-based and SMT-based methods to finding abductive explanations of the network's classifications based on pixel-level features. We also compared the found explanations against SHAP, a popular method used in the area of explainable AI. We show that, unlike SHAP, our approach guarantees that a found explanation does not contain completely irrelevant features.

Graph neural networks such as ParticleNet and transformer based networks on point clouds such as ParticleTransformer achieve state-of-the-art performance on jet tagging benchmarks at the Large Hadron Collider, yet the physical reasoning behind their predictions remains opaque. We present different methods, i.e. perturbation-based (GNNExplainer), Shapley-value-based (GNNShap), and gradient-based (GRADCam); adapted to operate on LundNet's Lund-plane graph representation. Leveraging the fact that each node in the Lund plane corresponds to a physically meaningful parton splitting, we construct Monte Carlo truth explanation masks and introduce a physics-informed evaluation framework that goes beyond standard fidelity metrics. We perform the analysis in three transverse-momentum bins ($\mathrm{p_T} \in [500,700]$, $[800,1000]$, and the inclusive region $[500,1000]$ GeV), revealing how explanation quality and focus shift between non-perturbative and perturbative regimes. We further quantify the correlation between explainer-assigned node importance and classical jet substructure observables -- $N$-subjettiness ratios $τ_{21}$ and $τ_{32}$ and the energy correlation functions -- establishing the degree to which the model has learned known QCD features. We find that overall the weight assigned by explainability methods has a correlation with analytic observables, with expected shift across different phase space regimes, indicating that a trained neural network indeed learns some aspects of jet-substructure moments. Our open-source implementation enables reproducible explainability studies for graph-based jet taggers.

Neural networks can be trained to learn task-relevant representations from data. Understanding how these networks make decisions falls within the Explainable AI (XAI) domain. This paper proposes to study an XAI topic: analysing, visualising and understanding the unknown organisation of network representations, particularly those a speaker recognition network learns from utterances, for recognising speaker identity. Past studies have employed algorithms (e.g. K-means) to analyse the different ways in which network representations can be naturally grouped into clusters, i.e. to analyse different flat clustering phenomena within the space defined by those representations. In contrast, this work applies two algorithms -- Single-Linkage Clustering (SLINK) and Hierarchical Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (HDBSCAN) -- to analyse the different ways in which representations from the speaker recognition network can form clusters with hierarchical relationships, i.e., to analyse different hierarchical clustering phenomena within the representation space of the speaker recognition network. Furthermore, an algorithm called Hierarchical Cluster-Class Matching (HCCM) is designed to semantically interpret one of the above hierarchical clustering phenomena analysed using SLINK. Given the clusters representing this phenomenon, HCCM identifies which ones best match individual semantic classes related to gender and nationality (e.g.\ male, female, Ireland, UK) and and-logic conjunctions of these classes (e.g.\ female and Ireland). The Liebig score metric is also proposed within HCCM to quantify the matching quality of each cluster-class pair and diagnose the factor that limits each match.

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

Automatic bacterial colony counting is a highly sought-after technology in modern biological laboratories because it eliminates manual counting effort. Previous work has observed that MicrobiaNet, currently the best-performing cardinality classification model for colony counting, has difficulty distinguishing colonies of three or more individuals. However, it is unclear if this is due to properties of the data together with inherent characteristics of the MicrobiaNet model. By analysing MicrobiaNet with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), we demonstrate that XAI can provide insights into how data properties constrain cardinality classification performance in colony counting. Our results show that high visual similarity across classes is the key issue hindering further performance improvement, revising prior assertions about MicrobiaNet. These findings suggest future work should focus on models that explicitly incorporate visual similarity or explore density estimation approaches, with broader implications for neural network classifiers trained on imbalanced datasets.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has predominantly focused on generating model-centric explanations that approximate the behavior of black-box models. However, such explanations often overlook a fundamental aspect of interpretability: different users require different explanations depending on their goals, preferences, and cognitive constraints. Although recent work has explored user-centric and personalized explanations, most existing approaches rely on heuristic adaptations or implicit user modeling, lacking a principled framework for representing and learning individual preferences. In this paper, we consider Preference-Based Explainable Artificial Intelligence (PREF-XAI), a novel perspective that reframes explanation as a preference-driven decision problem. Within PREF-XAI, explanations are not treated as fixed outputs, but as alternatives to be evaluated and selected according to user-specific criteria. In the PREF-XAI perspective, here we propose a methodology that combines rule-based explanations with formal preference learning. User preferences are elicited through a ranking of a small set of candidate explanations and modeled via an additive utility function inferred using robust ordinal regression. Experimental results on real-world datasets show that PREF-XAI can accurately reconstruct user preferences from limited feedback, identify highly relevant explanations, and discover novel explanatory rules not initially considered by the user. Beyond the proposed methodology, this work establishes a connection between XAI and preference learning, opening new directions for interactive and adaptive explanation systems.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make the behaviour of machine learning models interpretable, yet many explanation methods remain difficult to understand. The integration of Natural Language Generation into XAI aims to deliver explanations in textual form, making them more accessible to practitioners. Current approaches, however, largely yield static lists of feature importances. Although such explanations indicate what influences the prediction, they do not explain why the prediction occurs. In this study, we draw on insights from social sciences and linguistics, and argue that XAI explanations should be presented in the form of narratives. Narrative explanations support human understanding through four defining properties: continuous structure, cause-effect mechanisms, linguistic fluency, and lexical diversity. We show that standard Natural Language Processing (NLP) metrics based solely on token probability or word frequency fail to capture these properties and can be matched or exceeded by tautological text that conveys no explanatory content. To address this issue, we propose seven automatic metrics that quantify the narrative quality of explanations along the four identified dimensions. We benchmark current state-of-the-art explanation generation methods on six datasets and show that the proposed metrics separate descriptive from narrative explanations more reliably than standard NLP metrics. Finally, to further advance the field, we propose a set of problem-agnostic XAI Narrative generation rules for producing natural language XAI explanations, so that the resulting XAI Narratives exhibit stronger narrative properties and align with the findings from the linguistic and social science literature.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across many NLP tasks, their opaque internal mechanisms hinder trustworthiness and safe deployment. Existing surveys in explainable AI largely focus on post-hoc explanation methods that interpret trained models through external approximations. In contrast, intrinsic interpretability, which builds transparency directly into model architectures and computations, has recently emerged as a promising alternative. This paper presents a systematic review of the recent advances in intrinsic interpretability for LLMs, categorizing existing approaches into five design paradigms: functional transparency, concept alignment, representational decomposability, explicit modularization, and latent sparsity induction. We further discuss open challenges and outline future research directions in this emerging field. The paper list is available at: https://github.com/PKU-PILLAR-Group/Survey-Intrinsic-Interpretability-of-LLMs.

For around a decade, non-symbolic methods have been the option of choice when explaining complex machine learning (ML) models. Unfortunately, such methods lack rigor and can mislead human decision-makers. In high-stakes uses of ML, the lack of rigor is especially problematic. One prime example of provable lack of rigor is the adoption of Shapley values in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), with the tool SHAP being a ubiquitous example. This paper overviews the ongoing efforts towards using rigorous symbolic methods of XAI as an alternative to non-rigorous non-symbolic approaches, concretely for assigning relative feature importance.

As companies enter the race for agentic AI adoption, fears surface around agentic autonomy and its subsequent risks. These fears compound as companies scale their agentic AI adoption with low-code applications, without a comparable scaling in their governance processes and expertise resulting in a phenomenon known as "Agent Sprawl". While shadow AI tools can help with agentic discovery and identification, few observability tools offer insights into the agents' configuration and settings or the decision-making process during agent-to-agent communication and orchestration. This paper explores AI governance professionals' concerns in enterprise settings, while offering design-time and runtime explainability techniques as suggested by AI governance experts for addressing those fears. Finally, we provide a preliminary prototype of an Agentic AI Card that can help companies feel at ease deploying agents at scale.

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.

While eXplainable AI (XAI) has advanced significantly, few methods address interpretability in embedded vector spaces where dimensions represent complex abstractions. We introduce Distance Explainer, a novel method for generating local, post-hoc explanations of embedded spaces in machine learning models. Our approach adapts saliency-based techniques from RISE to explain the distance between two embedded data points by assigning attribution values through selective masking and distance-ranked mask filtering. We evaluate Distance Explainer on cross-modal embeddings (image-image and image-caption pairs) using established XAI metrics including Faithfulness, Sensitivity/Robustness, and Randomization. Experiments with ImageNet and CLIP models demonstrate that our method effectively identifies features contributing to similarity or dissimilarity between embedded data points while maintaining high robustness and consistency. We also explore how parameter tuning, particularly mask quantity and selection strategy, affects explanation quality. This work addresses a critical gap in XAI research and enhances transparency and trustworthiness in deep learning applications utilizing embedded spaces.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

Counterfactual explanations explain machine learning predictions by identifying minimal input changes that would alter a model's decision. Although many existing methods successfully generate prediction-changing alternatives, they often produce unrealistic or infeasible recommendations due to a lack of explicit mechanisms for incorporating domain knowledge and intervention constraints. Neuro-symbolic AI offers a promising direction by combining data-driven predictive models with symbolic reasoning capable of representing human-understandable rules and feasible actions. This paper presents PACE, a modular neuro-symbolic framework for generating feasibility-aware counterfactual explanations. The framework separates prediction and reasoning into two components: a neural predictive model for classification and a symbolic reasoning layer that enforces domain-specific constraints during counterfactual generation. By explicitly modeling feasible interventions, the framework produces explanations consistent with domain knowledge while remaining interpretable and actionable. The approach is model-agnostic and adaptable to domains requiring realistic decision support. A case study is conducted on the Adult Income dataset, combining a multilayer perceptron classifier with Answer Set Programming (ASP) rules encoding feasible modifications to education, occupation, and working hours while preserving immutable attributes. Results highlight the trade-off between counterfactual validity and plausibility and show that symbolic constraints yield explanations that better satisfy domain-specific feasibility requirements, illustrating the potential of neuro-symbolic methods for transparent, feasibility-aware counterfactual explanation in explainable AI.

The escalating complexity of modern cyber threats demands innovative approaches to security education that transcend traditional pedagogical methods. Conventional training paradigms often fail to engage learners meaningfully or develop the intuitive reasoning necessary for effective threat recognition. This paper introduces an interactive educational framework that reimagines cybersecurity awareness through the lens of a structured guessing game. Our approach integrates explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) principles with reinforcement learning to create a dynamic learning environment where users discover cybersecurity concepts through guided inquiry. The proposed system employs a policy-based reinforcement learning agent that assumes the role of a knowledgeable questioner, systematically narrowing down user-described security scenarios until it can both identify the underlying threat and provide transparent reasoning for its conclusion. By framing security education as an interactive dialogue, we transform passive knowledge acquisition into active discovery. We present the complete system architecture, detail the underlying algorithmic foundations, and demonstrate practical application through comprehensive case studies examining diverse attack vectors including the Cyber Kill Chain, phishing campaigns, ransomware outbreaks, and web application vulnerabilities. This work represents a significant departure from static security training methodologies, offering a personalized and game-based approach to cybersecurity education.