Explainable Artificial Intelligence

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to translate the technical outputs of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods into accessible natural-language explanations. However, existing approaches often lack guarantees of accuracy, faithfulness, and completeness. At the same time, current efforts to evaluate such narratives remain largely subjective or confined to post-hoc scoring, offering no safeguards to prevent flawed explanations from reaching end-users. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a Two-Stage LLM Meta-Verification Framework that consists of (i) an Explainer LLM that converts raw XAI outputs into natural-language narratives, (ii) a Verifier LLM that assesses them in terms of faithfulness, coherence, completeness, and hallucination risk, and (iii) an iterative refeed mechanism that uses the Verifier's feedback to refine and improve them. Experiments across five XAI techniques and datasets, using three families of open-weight LLMs, show that verification is crucial for filtering unreliable explanations while improving linguistic accessibility compared with raw XAI outputs. In addition, the analysis of the Entropy Production Rate (EPR) during the refinement process indicates that the Verifier's feedback progressively guides the Explainer toward more stable and coherent reasoning. Overall, the proposed framework provides an efficient pathway toward more trustworthy and democratized XAI systems.

Robust explanations are increasingly required for user trust in enterprise NLP, yet pre-deployment validation is difficult in the common case of black-box deployment (API-only access) where representation-based explainers are infeasible and existing studies provide limited guidance on whether explanations remain stable under real user noise, especially when organizations migrate from encoder classifiers to decoder LLMs. To close this gap, we propose a unified black-box robustness evaluation framework for token-level explanations based on leave-one-out occlusion, and operationalize explanation robustness with top-token flip rate under realistic perturbations (swap, deletion, shuffling, and back-translation) at multiple severity levels. Using this protocol, we conduct a systematic cross-architecture comparison across three benchmark datasets and six models spanning encoder and decoder families (BERT, RoBERTa, Qwen 7B/14B, Llama 8B/70B; 64,800 cases). We find that decoder LLMs produce substantially more stable explanations than encoder baselines (73% lower flip rates on average), and that stability improves with model scale (44% gain from 7B to 70B). Finally, we relate robustness improvements to inference cost, yielding a practical cost-robustness tradeoff curve that supports model and explanation selection prior to deployment in compliance-sensitive applications.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods reveal which features influence model predictions, yet provide limited means for practitioners to act on these explanations. Activation steering of components identified via XAI offers a path toward actionable explanations, although its practical utility remains understudied. We introduce an interactive workflow combining SAE-based attribution with activation steering for instance-level analysis of concept usage in vision models, implemented as a web-based tool. Based on this workflow, we conduct semi-structured expert interviews (N=8) with debugging tasks on CLIP to investigate how practitioners reason about, trust, and apply activation steering. We find that steering enables a shift from inspection to intervention-based hypothesis testing (8/8 participants), with most grounding trust in observed model responses rather than explanation plausibility alone (6/8). Participants adopted systematic debugging strategies dominated by component suppression (7/8) and highlighted risks including ripple effects and limited generalization of instance-level corrections. Overall, activation steering renders interpretability more actionable while raising important considerations for safe and effective use.

We analyze two widely used local attribution methods, Local Shapley Values and LIME, which aim to quantify the contribution of a feature value $x_i$ to a specific prediction $f(x_1, \dots, x_p)$. Despite their widespread use, we identify fundamental limitations in their ability to reliably detect locally important features, even under ideal conditions with exact computations and independent features. We argue that a sound local attribution method should not assign importance to features that neither influence the model output (e.g., features with zero coefficients in a linear model) nor exhibit statistical dependence with functionality-relevant features. We demonstrate that both Local SV and LIME violate this fundamental principle. To address this, we propose R-LOCO (Regional Leave Out COvariates), which bridges the gap between local and global explanations and provides more accurate attributions. R-LOCO segments the input space into regions with similar feature importance characteristics. It then applies global attribution methods within these regions, deriving an instance's feature contributions from its regional membership. This approach delivers more faithful local attributions while avoiding local explanation instability and preserving instance-specific detail often lost in global methods.

Text-to-image (T2I) models, and their encoded biases, increasingly shape the visual media the public encounters. While researchers have produced a rich body of work on bias measurement, auditing, and mitigation in T2I systems, those methods largely target technical stakeholders, leaving a gap in public legibility. We introduce GLEaN (Generative Likeness Evaluation at N-Scale), a portrait-based explainability pipeline designed to make T2I model biases visually understandable to a broad audience. GLEaN comprises three stages: automated large-scale image generation from identity prompts, facial landmark-based filtering and spatial alignment, and median-pixel composition that distills a model's central tendency into a single representative portrait. The resulting composites require no statistical background to interpret; a viewer can see, at a glance, who a model 'imagines' when prompted with 'a doctor' versus a 'felon.' We demonstrate GLEaN on Stable Diffusion XL across 40 social and occupational identity prompts, producing composites that reproduce documented biases and surface new associations between skin tone and predicted emotion. We find in a between-subjects user study (N = 291) that GLEaN portraits communicate biases as effectively as conventional data tables, but require significantly less viewing time. Because the method relies solely on generated outputs, it can also be replicated on any black-box and closed-weight systems without access to model internals. GLEaN offers a scalable, model-agnostic approach to bias explainability, purpose-built for public comprehension, and is publicly available at https://github.com/cultureiolab/GLEaN.

Human activity recognition (HAR) has become a key component of intelligent systems for healthcare monitoring, assistive living, smart environments, and human-computer interaction. Although deep learning has substantially improved HAR performance on multivariate sensor data, the resulting models often remain opaque, limiting trust, reliability, and real-world deployment. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has therefore emerged as a critical direction for making HAR systems more transparent and human-centered. This paper presents a comprehensive review of explainable HAR methods across wearable, ambient, physiological, and multimodal sensing settings. We introduce a unified perspective that separates conceptual dimensions of explainability from algorithmic explanation mechanisms, reducing ambiguities in prior surveys. Building on this distinction, we present a mechanism-centric taxonomy of XAI-HAR methods covering major explanation paradigms. The review examines how these methods address the temporal, multimodal, and semantic complexities of HAR, and summarize their interpretability objectives, explanation targets, and limitations. In addition, we discuss current evaluation practices, highlight key challenges in achieving reliable and deployable XAI-HAR, and outline directions toward trustworthy activity recognition systems that better support human understanding and decision-making.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into peer review raises a concern beyond authorship and detection: the potential cascading automation of the entire editorial process. As reviews become partially or fully machine-generated, it becomes plausible that editorial decisions may also be delegated to algorithmic systems, leading to a fully automated evaluation pipeline. They risk reshaping the criteria by which scientific work is assessed. This paper argues that machine-driven assessment may systematically favor standardized, pattern-conforming research while penalizing unconventional and paradigm-shifting ideas that require contextual human judgment. We consider that this shift could lead to epistemic homogenization, where researchers are implicitly incentivized to optimize their work for algorithmic approval rather than genuine discovery. To address this risk, we introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns using markers LLM extractor, aiming to preserve transparency, accountability and creativity in science. The proposed framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set, while maintaining extremely low false positive rates (<0.23%) and false negative rates (~0.8%). In contrast, the logistic regression baseline performs substantially worse (89.97% accuracy, F1-score 0.8314). Feature importance and SHAP analyses identify absence of personal signals and repetition patterns as the dominant predictors. Additionally, the RAG component achieves 90.5% top-1 retrieval accuracy, with strong same-class clustering in the embedding space, further supporting the reliability of the framework's outputs.

As robots increasingly operate in shared, safety critical environments, acting safely is no longer sufficient robots must also make their safety decisions intelligible to human collaborators. In human robot collaboration (HRC), behaviours such as stopping or switching modes are often triggered by internal safety constraints that remain opaque to nearby workers. We present a dialogue based framework for interactive explanation of safety decisions in HRC. The approach tightly couples explanation with constraint based safety evaluation, grounding dialogue in the same state and constraint representations that govern behaviour selection. Explanations are derived directly from the recorded decision trace, enabling users to pose causal ("Why?"), contrastive ("Why not?"), and counterfactual ("What if?") queries about safety interventions. Counterfactual reasoning is evaluated in a bounded manner under fixed, certified safety parameters, ensuring that interactive exploration does not relax operational guarantees. We instantiate the framework in a construction robotics scenario and provide a structured operational trace illustrating how constraint aware dialogue clarifies safety interventions and supports coordinated task recovery. By treating explanation as an operational interface to safety control, this work advances a design perspective for interactive, safety aware autonomy in HRC.

We present BADAS-2.0, the second generation of our collision anticipation system, building on BADAS-1.0, which showed that fine-tuning V-JEPA2 on large-scale ego-centric dashcam data outperforms both academic baselines and production ADAS systems. BADAS-2.0 advances the state of the art along three axes. (i) Long-tail benchmark and accuracy: We introduce a 10-group long-tail benchmark targeting rare and safety-critical scenarios. To construct it, BADAS-1.0 is used as an active oracle to score millions of unlabeled drives and surface high-risk candidates for annotation. Combined with Nexar's Atlas platform for targeted data collection, this expands the dataset from 40k to 178,500 labeled videos (~2M clips), yielding consistent gains across all subgroups, with the largest improvements on the hardest long-tail cases. (ii) Knowledge distillation to edge: Domain-specific self-supervised pre-training on 2.25M unlabeled driving videos enables distillation into compact models, BADAS-2.0-Flash (86M) and BADAS-2.0-Flash-Lite (22M), achieving 7-12x speedup with near-parity accuracy, enabling real-time edge deployment. (iii) Explainability: BADAS-2.0 produces real-time object-centric attention heatmaps that localize the evidence behind predictions. BADAS-Reason extends this with a vision-language model that consumes the last frame and heatmap to generate driver actions and structured textual reasoning. Inference code and evaluation benchmarks are publicly available.

As deep neural networks are deployed in safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving and medical diagnosis, stakeholders need explanations that are interpretable but also trustworthy with formal guarantees. Existing XAI methods fall short: heuristic attribution techniques (e.g., LIME, Integrated Gradients) highlight influential features but offer no mathematical guarantees about decision boundaries, while formal methods verify robustness yet remain untargeted, analyzing the nearest boundary regardless of whether it represents a critical risk. In safety-critical systems, not all misclassifications carry equal consequences; confusing a "Stop" sign for a "60 kph" sign is far more dangerous than confusing it with a "No Passing" sign. We introduce ViTaX (Verified and Targeted Explanations), a formal XAI framework that generates targeted semifactual explanations with mathematical guarantees. For a given input (class y) and a user-specified critical alternative (class t), ViTaX: (1) identifies the minimal feature subset most sensitive to the y->t transition, and (2) applies formal reachability analysis to guarantee that perturbing these features by epsilon cannot flip the classification to t. We formalize this through Targeted epsilon-Robustness, certifying whether a feature subset remains robust under perturbation toward a specific target class. ViTaX is the first method to provide formally guaranteed explanations of a model's resilience against user-identified alternatives. Evaluations on MNIST, GTSRB, EMNIST, and TaxiNet demonstrate over 30% fidelity improvement with minimal explanation cardinality.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems continue to grow in size and complexity, so does the difficulty of the quest for AI transparency. In a world of large models and complex AI systems, why do we explain AI and what should we explain? While explanations serve multiple functions, in the face of complexity humans have used and continue to use explanations to foster learning. In this position paper, we discuss how learning theories can be infused in the XAI lifecycle, as well as the key opportunities and challenges when adopting a learner-centered approach to assess, design and evaluate AI explanations. Building on past work, we argue that a learner-centered approach to Explainable AI (XAI) can enhance human agency and ease XAI risks mitigation, helping evolve the practice of human-centered XAI.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is critical for ensuring trust and accountability, yet its development remains predominantly visual. For blind and low-vision (BLV) users, the lack of accessible explanations creates a fundamental barrier to the independent use of AI-driven assistive technologies. This problem intensifies as AI systems shift from single-query tools into autonomous agents that take multi-step actions and make consequential decisions across extended task horizons, where a single undetected error can propagate irreversibly before any feedback is available. This paper investigates the unique XAI requirements of the BLV community through a comprehensive analysis of user interviews and contemporary research. By examining usage patterns across environmental perception and decision support, we identify a significant modality gap. Empirical evidence suggests that while BLV users highly value conversational explanations, they frequently experience "self-blame" for AI failures. The paper concludes with a research agenda for accessible Explainable AI in agentic systems, advocating for multimodal interfaces, blame-aware explanation design, and participatory development.

Post-hoc explanation methods are widely used to interpret black-box predictions, but their generation is often computationally expensive and their reliability is not guaranteed. We propose epistemic uncertainty as a low-cost proxy for explanation reliability: high epistemic uncertainty identifies regions where the decision boundary is poorly defined and where explanations become unstable and unfaithful. This insight enables two complementary use cases: improving worst-case explanations' (routing samples to cheap or expensive XAI methods based on expected explanation reliability), and recalling high-quality explanations' (deferring explanation generation for uncertain samples under constrained budget). Across four tabular datasets, five diverse architectures, and four XAI methods, we observe a strong negative correlation between epistemic uncertainty and explanation stability. Further analysis shows that epistemic uncertainty distinguishes not only stable from unstable explanations, but also faithful from unfaithful ones. Experiments on image classification confirm that our findings generalize beyond tabular data.

Tree ensembles (TEs) find a multitude of practical applications. They represent one of the most general and accurate classes of machine learning methods. While they are typically quite concise in representation, their operation remains inscrutable to human decision makers. One solution to build trust in the operation of TEs is to automatically identify explanations for the predictions made. Evidently, we can only achieve trust using explanations, if those explanations are rigorous, that is truly reflect properties of the underlying predictor they explain This paper investigates the computation of rigorously-defined, logically-sound explanations for the concrete case of two well-known examples of tree ensembles, namely random forests and boosted trees.

The demand for Explainable AI (XAI) has triggered an explosion of methods, producing a landscape so fragmented that we now rely on surveys of surveys. Yet, fundamental challenges persist: conflicting metrics, failed sanity checks, and unresolved debates over robustness and fairness. The only consensus on how to achieve explainability is a lack of one. This has led many to point to the absence of a ground truth for defining ``the'' correct explanation as the main culprit. This position paper posits that the persistent discord in XAI arises not from an absent ground truth but from a ground truth that exists, albeit as an elusive and challenging target: the causal model that governs the relevant system. By reframing XAI queries about data, models, or decisions as causal inquiries, we prove the necessity and sufficiency of causal models for XAI. We contend that without this causal grounding, XAI remains unmoored. Ultimately, we encourage the community to converge around advanced concept and causal discovery to escape this entrenched uncertainty.

This paper surveys uncertainty-aware explainable artificial intelligence (UAXAI), examining how uncertainty is incorporated into explanatory pipelines and how such methods are evaluated. Across the literature, three recurring approaches to uncertainty quantification emerge (Bayesian, Monte Carlo, and Conformal methods), alongside distinct strategies for integrating uncertainty into explanations: assessing trustworthiness, constraining models or explanations, and explicitly communicating uncertainty. Evaluation practices remain fragmented and largely model centered, with limited attention to users and inconsistent reporting of reliability properties (e.g., calibration, coverage, explanation stability). Recent work leans towards calibration, distribution free techniques and recognizes explainer variability as a central concern. We argue that progress in UAXAI requires unified evaluation principles that link uncertainty propagation, robustness, and human decision-making, and highlight counterfactual and calibration approaches as promising avenues for aligning interpretability with reliability.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods are commonly evaluated using functional correctness metrics, sometimes termed faithfulness or fidelity, which estimate how closely an explanation reflects the model's reasoning. Higher correctness is assumed to produce better human understanding, but this link has not been tested with controlled levels. We conducted a user study (N=200) that manipulated explanation correctness at four levels (100%, 85%, 70%, 55%) in a synthetic time series classification task where participants could not rely on domain knowledge or visual intuition. Correctness was defined against a known ground truth, not estimated from a trained model. Participants predicted a simulated AI's decisions from feature-attribution-style explanations (forward simulation), and we used their forward simulation accuracy as a proxy for understanding. Correctness affected understanding, but not at every level: forward simulation accuracy dropped at 70% and 55% relative to fully correct explanations, with no further reduction below 70% and no conclusive difference between 85% and 100%. Lower correctness reduced how many participants predicted accurately rather than lowering accuracy uniformly, and even fully correct explanations did not guarantee understanding: forward simulation accuracy was bimodal there, with only a subset of participants well above chance. In exploratory analyses, some participants predicted decisions accurately but described the wrong pattern when asked what the AI used, and self-reported ratings correlated with forward simulation accuracy only when explanations were fully correct. These findings show that not all differences in functional correctness translate to differences in human understanding, highlighting the need to validate functional metrics against human outcomes.

The realism of AI-generated images (AIGI) poses increasing challenges for reliable forensic detection, where heterogeneous expert detectors may produce conflicting predictions across diverse generative sources and post-processing conditions. Existing multi-expert fusion methods rely on fixed rules or learned fusion strategies, offering limited ability to assess sample-specific reliability, execute rigorous adjudication of conflicts, and provide evidence-grounded explanations. We propose AgentFoX, an LLM-driven agentic multi-expert framework for AIGI detection that employs a command-and-reasoning core to perform evidence fusion. Following predefined guidelines, the core coordinates designated subtasks to collect semantic and signal-level evidence, reason over structured contexts to determine authenticity, and generate an auditable report for explainability. During this process, Expert Profiles are constructed for model-centric reliability assessment, while Clustering Profiles are built for data-centric contextual analysis, jointly establishing evidence contexts for conflict resolution. Extensive evaluations across diverse benchmarks demonstrate the robustness and generalizability of AgentFoX under complex conditions.

Explainable AI is increasingly important to scientific discovery. However, existing methods largely ignore that explanation quality is not universal: experts differ in how they assess evidence, prioritize mechanisms, and construct explanatory narratives. We introduce perspective-conditioned explanations, a framework for adapting explanation generation to epistemic variation in expert judgment. Using knowledge graph reasoning paths in drug discovery, we show that preferences organize into coherent epistemic perspectives that can be captured by agentic personas, representations of how experts evaluate explanations. Persona-aligned rewards then guide reinforcement learning-based explanation generation without large-scale expert supervision. Expert user studies show that perspective-conditioned explanations are preferred over general-purpose explanations and improve perceived relevance and validity. Moreover, they match or exceed state-of-the-art predictive performance and reduce expert feedback time by two orders of magnitude. Together, these findings demonstrate that explanation quality is perspective-dependent and that modeling this variation enables scalable and human-aligned explanation generation for scientific discovery.

Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are stealthy, multi-stage attacks that require adaptive and timely defense. While deep reinforcement learning (DRL) enables autonomous cyber defense, its decisions are often opaque and difficult to trust in operational environments. This paper presents DeepXplain, an explainable DRL framework for stage-aware APT defense. Building on our prior DeepStage model, DeepXplain integrates provenance-based graph learning, temporal stage estimation, and a unified XAI pipeline that provides structural, temporal, and policy-level explanations. Unlike post-hoc methods, explanation signals are incorporated directly into policy optimization through evidence alignment and confidence-aware reward shaping. To the best of our knowledge, DeepXplain is the first framework to integrate explanation signals into reinforcement learning for APT defense. Experiments in a realistic enterprise testbed show improvements in stage-weighted F1-score (0.887 to 0.915) and success rate (84.7% to 89.6%), along with higher explanation confidence (0.86), improved fidelity (0.79), and more compact explanations (0.31). These results demonstrate enhanced effectiveness and trustworthiness of autonomous cyber defense.

Interpreting complex machine learning models is a critical challenge, especially for tabular data where model transparency is paramount. Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) has been a very popular framework for interpretable machine learning, also inspiring many extensions. While traditional surrogate models used in LIME variants (e.g. linear regression and decision trees) offer a degree of stability, they can struggle to faithfully capture the complex non-linear decision boundaries that are inherent in many sophisticated black-box models. This work contributes toward bridging the gap between high predictive performance and interpretable decision-making. Specifically, we propose the NDT-LIME variant that integrates Neural Decision Trees (NDTs) as surrogate models. By leveraging the structured, hierarchical nature of NDTs, our approach aims at providing more accurate and meaningful local explanations. We evaluate its effectiveness on several benchmark tabular datasets, showing consistent improvements in explanation fidelity over traditional LIME surrogates.

Explainable AI (XAI) research has experienced substantial growth in recent years. Existing XAI methods, however, have been criticized for being technical and expert-oriented, motivating the development of more interpretable and accessible explanations. In response, large language model (LLM)-generated XAI narratives have been proposed as a promising approach for translating post-hoc explanations into more accessible, natural-language explanations. In this work, we propose a multi-agent framework for XAI narrative generation and refinement. The framework comprises the Narrator, which generates and revises narratives based on feedback from multiple Critic Agents on faithfulness and coherence metrics, thereby enabling narrative improvement through iteration. We design five agentic systems (Basic Design, Critic Design, Critic-Rule Design, Coherent Design, and Coherent-Rule Design) and systematically evaluate their effectiveness across five LLMs on five tabular datasets. Results validate that the Basic Design, the Critic Design, and the Critic-Rule Design are effective in improving the faithfulness of narratives across all LLMs. Claude-4.5-Sonnet on Basic Design performs best, reducing the number of unfaithful narratives by 90% after three rounds of iteration. To address recurrent issues, we further introduce an ensemble strategy based on majority voting. This approach consistently enhances performance for four LLMs, except for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp. These findings highlight the potential of agentic systems to produce faithful and coherent XAI narratives.

In recent years, machine learning models have been increasingly applied to spectroscopic datasets for chemical and biomedical analysis. For their successful adoption, particularly in clinical and safety-critical settings, professionals and researchers must be able to understand and trust the reasoning behind model predictions. However, the inherently high dimensionality and strong collinearity of spectroscopy data pose a fundamental challenge to model explainability. These properties not only complicate model training but also undermine the stability and consistency of explanations, leading to fluctuations in feature importance across repeated training runs. Feature extraction techniques have been used to reduce the input dimensionality; these new features hinder the connection between the prediction and the original signal. This study proposes SHAPCA, an explainable machine learning pipeline that combines Principal Component Analysis (for dimensionality reduction) and Shapely Additive exPlanations (for post hoc explanation) to provide explanations in the original input space, which a practitioner can interpret and link back to the biological components. The proposed framework enables analysis from both global and local perspectives, revealing the spectral bands that drive overall model behaviour as well as the instance-specific features that influence individual predictions. Numerical analysis demonstrated the interpretability of the results and greater consistency across different runs.

Explainable AI (XAI) has evolved in response to expectations and regulations, such as the EU AI Act, which introduces regulatory requirements on AI-powered systems. However, a persistent gap remains between existing XAI methods and society's legal requirements, leaving practitioners without clear guidance on how to approach compliance in the EU market. To bridge this gap, we study model-agnostic XAI methods and relate their interpretability features to the requirements of the AI Act. We then propose a qualitative-to-quantitative scoring framework: qualitative expert assessments of XAI properties are aggregated into a regulation-specific compliance score. This helps practitioners identify when XAI solutions may support legal explanation requirements while highlighting technical issues that require further research and regulatory clarification.

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.

Recently, in eXplainable AI (XAI), $\textit{even if}$ explanations -- so-called semi-factuals -- have emerged as a popular strategy that explains how a predicted outcome $\textit{can remain the same}$ even when certain input-features are altered. For example, in the commonly-used banking app scenario, a semi-factual explanation could inform customers about better options, other alternatives for their successful application, by saying "$\textit{Even if}$ you asked for double the loan amount, you would still be accepted". Most semi-factuals XAI algorithms focus on finding maximal value-changes to a single key-feature that do $\textit{not}$ alter the outcome (unlike counterfactual explanations that often find minimal value-changes to several features that alter the outcome). However, no current semi-factual method explains $\textit{why}$ these extreme value-changes do not alter outcomes; for example, a more informative semi-factual could tell the customer that it is their good credit score that allows them to borrow double their requested loan. In this work, we advance a new algorithm -- the $\textit{informative semi-factuals}$ (ISF) method -- that generates more elaborated explanations supplementing semi-factuals with information about additional $\textit{hidden features}$ that influence an automated decision. Experimental results on benchmark datasets show that this ISF method computes semi-factuals that are both informative and of high-quality on key metrics. Furthermore, a user study shows that people prefer these elaborated explanations over the simpler semi-factual explanations generated by current methods.

Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and extensive feature engineering. In contrast, LLMs excel at processing unstructured text, yet their opaque nature makes their reasoning difficult to evaluate and trust. We argue that the convergence of these fields will lay the foundation for a new paradigm: Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making. We analyze how the synergy of argumentation framework mining, argumentation framework synthesis, and argumentative reasoning enables agents that do not just justify decisions, but engage in dialectical processes where decisions are contestable and revisable -- reasoning with humans rather than for them. This convergence of computational argumentation and LLMs is essential for human-aware, trustworthy AI in high-stakes domains.

Explainable AI (XAI) interfaces seek to make large language models more transparent, yet explanation alone does not produce understanding. Explaining a system's behavior is not the same as being able to engage with it, to probe and interpret its operations through direct manipulation. This distinction matters for scientific disciplines in particular: scientists who increasingly rely on LLMs for reading, citing, and producing literature reviews have little means of directly engaging with how these models process and transform the texts they generate. In this ongoing design research project, I argue for a shift from explainability to interpretative engagement. This shift moves away from accounts of system behavior to instead enable users to manipulate a model's intermediate representations. Drawing on textual scholarship, computational poetics, and the history of reading and writing technologies, including practices such as marginalia, glosses, indices, and annotation systems, I propose interpretative interfaces as interactive environments in which non-expert users can intervene in the representational space of a language model. More specifically, such interfaces will allow users to select a token and follow its trajectory through the model's intermediate layers. This way, they can observe how its semantic position shifts as context is processed, and possibly annotate the transformations they find useful or meaningful. The same way readers can create their own maps within a book through annotations and bookmarks, interpretative interfaces will allow users to inscribe their reading of a model's internal representations. The goal of this project is to reframe AI interpretability as an interaction design project rather than a purely technical one, and to open a path toward AI-mediated reading that supports interpretative engagement and critical stewardship of scientific knowledge.

This paper proposes and argues for a counterintuitive thesis: the truly valuable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) reside precisely in the part that cannot be fully captured by human-readable discrete rules. The core argument is a proof by contradiction via expert system equivalence: if the full capabilities of an LLM could be described by a complete set of human-readable rules, then that rule set would be functionally equivalent to an expert system; but expert systems have been historically and empirically demonstrated to be strictly weaker than LLMs; therefore, a contradiction arises -- the capabilities of LLMs that exceed those of expert systems are exactly the capabilities that cannot be rule-encoded. This thesis is further supported by the Chinese philosophical concept of Wu (sudden insight through practice), the historical failure of expert systems, and a structural mismatch between human cognitive tools and complex systems. The paper discusses implications for interpretability research, AI safety, and scientific epistemology.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong general capabilities, but their deployment in high-stakes domains is hindered by their opacity and unpredictability. Recent work has taken meaningful steps towards addressing these issues by augmenting LLMs with post-hoc reasoning based on computational argumentation, providing faithful explanations and enabling users to contest incorrect decisions. However, this paradigm is limited to pre-defined binary choices and only supports local contestation for specific instances, leaving the underlying decision logic unchanged and prone to repeated mistakes. In this paper, we introduce ArgEval, a framework that shifts from instance-specific reasoning to structured evaluation of general decision options. Rather than mining arguments solely for individual cases, ArgEval systematically maps task-specific decision spaces, builds corresponding option ontologies, and constructs general argumentation frameworks (AFs) for each option. These frameworks can then be instantiated to provide explainable recommendations for specific cases while still supporting global contestability through modification of the shared AFs. We investigate the effectiveness of ArgEval on treatment recommendation for glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumour, and show that it can produce explainable guidance aligned with clinical practice.