Research Papers

An XAI View on Explainable ASP: Methods, Systems, and Perspectives

Thomas Eiter, Tobias Geibinger, Zeynep G. Saribatur

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular declarative reasoning and problem solving approach in symbolic AI. Its rule-based formalism makes it inherently attractive for explainable and interpretive reasoning, which is gaining importance with the surge of Explainable AI (XAI). A number of explanation approaches and tools for ASP have been developed, which often tackle specific explanatory settings and may not cover all scenarios that ASP users encounter. In this survey, we provide, guided by an XAI perspective, an overview of types of ASP explanations in connection with user questions for explanation, and describe their coverage by current theory and tools. Furthermore, we pinpoint gaps in existing ASP explanations approaches and identify research directions for future work.

Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique

Joyjit Roy, Samaresh Kumar Singh

Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability in regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable when human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. In this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.

Deep neural two-sample tests have recently shown strong power for detecting distributional differences between groups, yet their black-box nature limits interpretability and practical adoption in biomedical analysis. Moreover, most existing post-hoc explainability methods rely on class labels, making them unsuitable for label-free statistical testing settings. We propose an explainable deep statistical testing framework that augments deep two-sample tests with sample-level and feature-level explanations, revealing which individual samples and which input features drive statistically significant group differences. Our method highlights which image regions and which individual samples contribute most to the detected group difference, providing spatial and instance-wise insight into the test's decision. Applied to biomedical imaging data, the proposed framework identifies influential samples and highlights anatomically meaningful regions associated with disease-related variation. This work bridges statistical inference and explainable AI, enabling interpretable, label-free population analysis in medical imaging.

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) has exposed significant deficiencies in risk governance. While ex-ante harm identification and prevention have advanced, Responsible AI scholarship remains underdeveloped in addressing ex-post liability. Core legal questions regarding liability allocation, responsibility attribution, and remedial effectiveness remain insufficiently theorized and institutionalized, particularly for transboundary harms and risks that transcend national jurisdictions. Drawing on contemporary AI risk analyses, we argue that such harms are structurally embedded in global AI supply chains and are likely to escalate in frequency and severity due to cross-border deployment, data infrastructures, and uneven national oversight capacities. Consequently, territorially bounded liability regimes are increasingly inadequate. Using a comparative and interdisciplinary approach, this paper examines compensation and liability frameworks from high-risk transnational domains - including vaccine injury schemes, systemic financial risk governance, commercial nuclear liability, and international environmental regimes - to distill transferable legal design principles such as strict liability, risk pooling, collective risk-sharing, and liability channelling, while highlighting potential structural constraints on their application to AI-related harms. Situated within an international order shaped more by AI arms race dynamics than cooperative governance, the paper outlines the contours of a global AI accountability and compensation architecture, emphasizing the tension between geopolitical rivalry and the collective action required to govern transboundary AI risks effectively.

Evaluating large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems remains a critical challenge, as these systems must exhibit reliable coordination, transparent decision-making, and verifiable performance across evolving tasks. Existing evaluation approaches often limit themselves to single-response scoring or narrow benchmarks, which lack stability, extensibility, and automation when deployed in enterprise settings at multi-agent scale. We present AEMA (Adaptive Evaluation Multi-Agent), a process-aware and auditable framework that plans, executes, and aggregates multi-step evaluations across heterogeneous agentic workflows under human oversight. Compared to a single LLM-as-a-Judge, AEMA achieves greater stability, human alignment, and traceable records that support accountable automation. Our results on enterprise-style agent workflows simulated using realistic business scenarios demonstrate that AEMA provides a transparent and reproducible pathway toward responsible evaluation of LLM-based multi-agent systems. Keywords Agentic AI, Multi-Agent Systems, Trustworthy AI, Verifiable Evaluation, Human Oversight

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is concerned with producing explanations indicating the inner workings of models. For a Rashomon set of similarly performing models, explanations provide a way of disambiguating the behavior of individual models, helping select models for deployment. However explanations themselves can vary depending on the explainer used, and need to be evaluated. In the paper "Evaluating Model Explanations without Ground Truth", we proposed three principles of explanation evaluation and a new method "AXE" to evaluate the quality of feature-importance explanations. We go on to illustrate how evaluation metrics that rely on comparing model explanations against ideal ground truth explanations obscure behavioral differences within a Rashomon set. Explanation evaluation aligned with our proposed principles would highlight these differences instead, helping select models from the Rashomon set. The selection of alternate models from the Rashomon set can maintain identical predictions but mislead explainers into generating false explanations, and mislead evaluation methods into considering the false explanations to be of high quality. AXE, our proposed explanation evaluation method, can detect this adversarial fairwashing of explanations with a 100% success rate. Unlike prior explanation evaluation strategies such as those based on model sensitivity or ground truth comparison, AXE can determine when protected attributes are used to make predictions.

Artificial intelligence research faces a critical ethical paradox: determining whether AI systems are conscious requires experiments that may harm entities whose moral status remains uncertain. Recent work proposes avoiding consciousness-uncertain AI systems entirely, yet this faces practical limitations-we cannot guarantee such systems will not emerge. This paper addresses a gap in research ethics frameworks: how to conduct consciousness research on AI systems whose moral status cannot be definitively established. Existing graduated moral status frameworks assume consciousness has already been determined before assigning protections, creating a temporal ordering problem for consciousness detection research itself. Drawing from Talmudic scenario-based legal reasoning-developed for entities whose status cannot be definitively established-we propose a three-tier phenomenological assessment system combined with a five-category capacity framework (Agency, Capability, Knowledge, Ethics, Reasoning). The framework provides structured protection protocols based on observable behavioral indicators while consciousness status remains uncertain. We address three challenges: why suffering behaviors provide reliable consciousness markers, how to implement graduated consent without requiring consciousness certainty, and when potentially harmful research becomes ethically justifiable. The framework demonstrates how ancient legal wisdom combined with contemporary consciousness science can provide implementable guidance for ethics committees, offering testable protocols that ameliorate the consciousness detection paradox while establishing foundations for AI rights considerations.

Engaging learners in dialogue around controversial issues is essential for examining diverse values and perspectives in pluralistic societies. While prior research has identified productive discussion moves mainly in STEM-oriented contexts, less is known about what constitutes productive discussion in ethical and value-laden discussions. This study investigates productive discussion in AI ethics dilemmas using a dialogue-centric learning analytics approach. We analyze small-group discussions among undergraduate students through a hybrid method that integrates expert-informed coding with data-driven topic modeling. This process identifies 14 discussion moves across five categories, including Elaborating Ideas, Position Taking, Reasoning & Justifications, Emotional Expression, and Discussion Management. We then examine how these moves relate to discussion quality and analyze sequential interaction patterns using Ordered Network Analysis. Results indicate that emotive and experiential arguments and explicit acknowledgment of ambiguity are strong positive predictors of discussion quality, whereas building on ideas is negatively associated. Ordered Network Analysis further reveals that productive discussions are characterized by interactional patterns that connect emotional expressions to evidence-based reasoning. These findings suggest that productive ethical discussion is grounded not only in reasoning and justification but also in the constructive integration of emotional expression.

We propose an approach to model articles of the Italian Criminal Code (ICC), using Answer Set Programming (ASP), and to semi-automatically learn legal rules from examples based on prior judicial decisions. The developed tool is intended to support legal experts during the criminal trial phase by providing reasoning and possible legal outcomes. The methodology involves analyzing and encoding articles of the ICC in ASP, including "crimes against the person" and property offenses. The resulting model is validated on a set of previous verdicts and refined as necessary. During the encoding process, contradictions may arise; these are properly handled by the system, which also generates possible decisions for new cases and provides explanations through a tool that leverages the "supportedness" of stable models. The automatic explainability offered by the tool can also be used to clarify the logic behind judicial decisions, making the decision-making process more interpretable. Furthermore, the tool integrates an inductive logic programming system for ASP, which is employed to generalize legal rules from case examples.

Modern AI systems rely on vector embeddings stored and searched using floating-point arithmetic. While effective for approximate similarity search, this design introduces fundamental non-determinism: identical models, inputs, and code can produce different memory states and retrieval results across hardware architectures (e.g., x86 vs. ARM). This prevents replayability and safe deployment, leading to silent data divergence that prevents post-hoc verification and compromises audit trails in regulated sectors. We present Valori, a deterministic AI memory substrate that replaces floating-point memory operations with fixed-point arithmetic (Q16.16) and models memory as a replayable state machine. Valori guarantees bit-identical memory states, snapshots, and search results across platforms. We demonstrate that non-determinism arises before indexing or retrieval and show how Valori enforces determinism at the memory boundary. Our results suggest that deterministic memory is a necessary primitive for trustworthy AI systems. The reference implementation is open-source and available at https://github.com/varshith-Git/Valori-Kernel (archived at https://zenodo.org/records/18022660).

Hyperparameters tuning is a fundamental, yet computationally expensive, step in optimizing machine learning models. Beyond optimization, understanding the relative importance and interaction of hyperparameters is critical to efficient model development. In this paper, we introduce MetaSHAP, a scalable semi-automated eXplainable AI (XAI) method, that uses meta-learning and Shapley values analysis to provide actionable and dataset-aware tuning insights. MetaSHAP operates over a vast benchmark of over 09 millions evaluated machine learning pipelines, allowing it to produce interpretable importance scores and actionable tuning insights that reveal how much each hyperparameter matters, how it interacts with others and in which value ranges its influence is concentrated. For a given algorithm and dataset, MetaSHAP learns a surrogate performance model from historical configurations, computes hyperparameters interactions using SHAP-based analysis, and derives interpretable tuning ranges from the most influential hyperparameters. This allows practitioners not only to prioritize which hyperparameters to tune, but also to understand their directionality and interactions. We empirically validate MetaSHAP on a diverse benchmark of 164 classification datasets and 14 classifiers, demonstrating that it produces reliable importance rankings and competitive performance when used to guide Bayesian optimization.

Virtual testing using synthetic data has become a cornerstone of autonomous vehicle (AV) safety assurance. Despite progress in improving visual realism through advanced simulators and generative AI, recent studies reveal that pixel-level fidelity alone does not ensure reliable transfer from simulation to the real world. What truly matters is whether the system-under-test (SUT) bases its decisions on consistent decision evidence in both real and simulated environments, not just whether images "look real" to humans. To this end this paper proposes a behavior-grounded fidelity measure by introducing Decisive Feature Fidelity (DFF), a new SUT-specific metric that extends the existing fidelity spectrum to capture mechanism parity, that is, agreement in the model-specific decisive evidence that drives the SUT's decisions across domains. DFF leverages explainable-AI methods to identify and compare the decisive features driving the SUT's outputs for matched real-synthetic pairs. We further propose estimators based on counterfactual explanations, along with a DFF-guided calibration scheme to enhance simulator fidelity. Experiments on 2126 matched KITTI-VirtualKITTI2 pairs demonstrate that DFF reveals discrepancies overlooked by conventional output-value fidelity. Furthermore, results show that DFF-guided calibration improves decisive-feature and input-level fidelity without sacrificing output value fidelity across diverse SUTs.