Research Papers

Eliciting explainable AI (XAI) requirements from stroke survivors presents a methodological challenge with direct implications for the design of trustworthy brain-computer interfaces for rehabilitation. How can patients and caregivers articulate preferences about algorithmic transparency when they lack conceptual frameworks for explainability, and when standard elicitation approaches are structurally inadequate for users with acquired communication disorders? We present a video-based scaffolding protocol for XAI requirements elicitation, developed and piloted in a rehabilitation context. In a formative study with three stroke survivors (two with moderate-to-severe aphasia) and three caregivers, facilitators employed four scaffolding approaches alongside the videos: 1) analogical bridging mapping AI states to familiar systems, 2) projective personas depersonalising sensitive topics, 3) binary forcing reducing cognitive load, and 4) extended response time. These approaches successfully surfaced heterogeneous, sometimes conflicting XAI needs across participants. Reflexive analysis additionally revealed three systematic facilitation biases, namely, normative bias, hypothesis confirmation bias, and presence effect, where scaffolding inadvertently shaped responses. We present these as protocol risk guidelines for practitioners. Together, the protocol and guidelines constitute a reusable methodological contribution for eliciting patient-facing XAI requirements in rehabilitation, arguing that such elicitation is a necessary prerequisite for trustworthy human-machine systems design, not an optional preliminary.

Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources. That pressure has intensified with general-purpose AI (GPAI): AI built on large language models that can be directed by prompt alone to perform an effectively unbounded range of tasks. We argue that the properties that make these models attractive - their generality, accessibility, and low deployment cost - undermine the conditions under which AI safety has historically been pursued. The safety concepts that public service governance frameworks foreground - accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability - were made tractable by narrow, purpose-built AI, and the mitigations that guidance documents prescribe presuppose exactly what GPAI removes. Accuracy cannot be quantified over unbounded outputs. Bias cannot be disaggregated when outputs are free-text judgements rather than categorical predictions. Explainability gives way to the appearance of explanation, and accountability erodes as outputs are optimized to persuade. We develop this through the case of policing, where the consequences of governance failure are most severe, and show why the same failure is likely to recur across other public services. The two mitigations that dominate policing AI strategy - expert evaluation and human-in-the-loop oversight - both rest on assumptions that GPAI violates. Safety assurance thus shifts from an intrinsic feature of building an AI tool to an optional add-on. We recommend a clear taxonomic distinction between narrow and general-purpose AI in governance documentation, a preference for technological parsimony, a pause on operational deployment of GPAI in policing until adequate evidence exists, and a coordinated national safety infrastructure with the authority to generate that evidence and determine when responsible deployment is achievable.

Acoustic biomarkers show promise for detecting Alzheimer's Disease (AD), yet whether the cues driving diagnostic AI align with those salient to human listeners is underexplored across languages and genders, where pathological markers and perceptual strategies differ. We train models to predict clinical AD status (pathology) and human perceptual scores across Mandarin and Greek, male and female speakers. Using SHAP for interpretability and statistical models for validation, we compare feature importance by subgroup. Results reveal a context-dependent divergence: pathological-perceptual alignment is significant for Mandarin and female speakers but disappears for Greek and male speakers, where pathology models did not exceed chance; this is a failure mode that population-specific auditing surfaces. Global Explainable AI (XAI) explanations can mask critical demographic divergences, highlighting the need for population-specific explainability auditing for equitable deployment of clinical speech AI.

Beyond Local Inspection: Global, Guideline-Grounded Evaluation of Post-hoc XAI Methods for ECG Classification

Nils Gumpfer, Michael Guckert, Samuel Sossalla +2

Explainable AI (XAI) is used to assess whether artificial intelligence models rely on meaningful patterns, yet explanations that appear plausible for individual predictions may systematically misrepresent model behavior. This is particularly problematic in medicine, where models may rely on irrelevant signal characteristics rather than disease-specific patterns without being recognizable. We address this challenge using electrocardiogram (ECG) data, for which clinical guidelines provide explicit knowledge about diagnostically relevant signal regions. We introduce a global, guideline-grounded framework that aggregates explanations across heartbeats to evaluate them against clinically defined regions of interest. Using four binary classifiers trained on PTB-XL, we assess 13 gradient-based methods across two categories of patterns: low-amplitude segments and high-amplitude QRS morphology. Our results reveal a systematic failure of methods transferred from computer vision. Their explanations often follow signal amplitude rather than clinical relevance, with mean Spearman correlations up to 0.69, leading them to overlook diagnostically decisive low-amplitude regions. For ischemia, LRP-$ε$ assigns only 4.6% of relevance to the ST segment, compared with 63.8% for LRP-SIGN. Nine of 13 methods fall below chance for at least one condition, indicating inconsistent reliability across patterns. These findings show that global, domain-grounded evaluation can uncover systematic explanation failures not obvious from sample-level heatmaps.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

(un)stable equilibrium is an ongoing series of works that is based on a practice of training generative neural networks without data. This paper introduces the second series of (un)stable equilibrium works, in which the process of training without data is visualised in a series of video pieces. These works show a generative network attempting to converge to a fixed point that is undefined, caught in an endless, unresolvable search for equilibrium. The video pieces described in this paper guide the viewer toward an understanding of AI through aesthetic experience rather than technical exposition, and strive to give a conceptual understanding of what AI could be, rather than a restatement of what it currently is. This project sits within a broader set of artistic practices that serve as an alternative and critical modes of explainability for AI.

Effective flood risk management relies on accurate forecasting, yet the "black box" nature of stateof-the-art Deep Learning models creates a barrier to trust and accountability in high-stakes public safety decisions. While existing Explainable AI (XAI) methods offer local attributions, they fail to provide the verifiable, operationally meaningful causal narratives required by disaster response authorities. To address this societal challenge, we propose Context-Aware Concept Distillation (CACD), a framework developed in collaboration with domain experts to distill opaque LSTMs into interpretable, hydrology-aware surrogate models. We introduce an unsupervised pipeline to discover a "Hydrological Language" and a Residual Hypernetwork that dynamically modulates these concepts based on static basin characteristics. Evaluated on 5,203 basins globally, our model achieves high fidelity (Median NSE 0.70), significantly outperforming black-box baselines (e.g., Multi Layer Perceptrons) on unseen future data. By demonstrating that human-interpretable concepts are sufficient to reconstruct flood dynamics, this work balances AI accuracy with the transparency required for responsible environmental decision-making.

Explainable AI through the Lens of Material Agency: Enabling Musical Interface Design with Neural Audio Models

Shuoyang Jasper Zheng, Anna Xambó Sedó, Nick Bryan-Kinns

Recent work in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly treats AI models as design materials that have distinctive computational properties to shape design artifacts. Artists learn to work with the model "at play" to explore their emerging properties. The aim of explainability, in this view, is to make visible a crafting and hacking space to enable sustained creative practices with AI. In this chapter, we propose material explainability as a range of activities and artifacts that transform AI models into accessible and inclusive design materials in the workspace of artists, designers, and makers. We present a case study of building a repository of resources to enable artistic explorations of neural audio models in New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) design. Reflecting on our community-building journey and the making of a collection of musical interface designs with a group of artists, we raise three recommendations on enabling the exploration of AI as materials in artistic practices to inspire future XAI design for artists.

Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome. While early methods primarily focused on minimal feature changes, recent work incorporates additional properties such as sparsity, actionability and plausibility. Despite this progress, fair and systematic evaluation remains challenging. Existing studies often rely on different data splits, predictive models, and evaluation metrics, which limits objective comparison across methods. To fill this gap, we introduce CEL (Counterfactual Explanations Library), a unified library and benchmark for counterfactual explanations designed to support consistent implementation and evaluation. CEL includes 18 datasets of varying size and complexity and provides implementations or reimplementations of 14 widely used counterfactual methods. Using this standardized setup, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative comparison across a variety of methods on datasets that differ in size, number, and types of attributes. The evaluation protocol incorporates multiple complementary metrics capturing validity, coverage, sparsity, proximity, and distributional plausibility, including density- and outlier-based measures to assess the realism of generated counterfactuals. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates recent counterfactual explanation methods within a unified and reproducible framework. While prior libraries and benchmarking efforts exist in the literature, many are outdated, limited in scope, or lack consistent evaluation protocols. The proposed benchmark aims to improve reproducibility, enable fair comparison, and establish a workbench for the development of future counterfactual explanation methods.

**Context:** Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) increasingly control Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs), yet small input perturbations can cause unsafe system-level behavior. Existing approaches often optimize perturbations for individual images and evaluate them only in simulation, limiting their generalizability and practical validity. **Objectives:** This work aims to generate robustness tests that remain effective across operational observations and to evaluate whether the resulting failures transfer from simulation to a physical robot. **Methods:** We propose an explainability-guided multi-objective evolutionary approach that generates sparse perturbations over representative images selected through visual and behavioral clustering. Aggregated Integrated Gradients guide mutations toward influential image regions. We evaluate the approach on a DNN-controlled LeoRover in Gazebo, conduct an ablation study, and validate a stratified subset of perturbations on the physical robot. **Results:** The approach achieved a median success rate of 70.0%, compared with 53.85% for unguided search, and increased median hypervolume from 0.65 to 0.73. Multi-image optimization improved the success rate from 50.0% to 57.5%, while XAI guidance further increased it to 70.0%. In the sim-to-real evaluation, simulation achieved 0.95 precision and 0.67 recall, and simulated and physical failure times showed a significant positive correlation of 0.617. **Conclusion:** Combining multi-image optimization with explainability-guided search improves robustness testing for DNN-controlled robotic systems. Simulation effectively identifies and prioritizes transferable failures, but physical validation remains necessary because some real-world failures are not reproduced in simulation.

Automated detection of vision impairing retina-based ocular conditions from fundus images is important for early screening, timely referral and reducing dependency on specialist-only assessment, for which neural network-based deep learning (DL) models have been widely utilized. However, explainability of the DL frameworks remains a major bottleneck for clinical adoption, particularly when model decisions are not linked to retinal regions that are clinically meaningful. To address this issue, this study presents CounterFundus, a novel CycleGAN-driven counterfactual explainability framework, integrating EfficientNet-B5-based retinal disease detection with visually interpretable disease-to-normal fundus image translation. For each pathological image, the counterfactual yielded by the CycleGAN generator represents an estimated healthy counterpart and the resultant difference map is utilized to localize disease-associated retinal changes. Unlike conventional post-hoc saliency methods, CounterFundus provides counterfactual explanations through visually plausible disease-to-normal retinal translation. Thereafter, to quantify the spatial agreement between counterfactual difference maps and classifier saliency, the Counterfactual-Classifier Alignment Score (CCAS) is introduced, embedding Spearman correlation, binary IoU and pointing accuracy into a single assessment protocol. To this end, EigenCAM-aligned evaluation demonstrates that the generated counterfactual explanations remain spatially consistent with classifier-relevant retinal evidence across all CCAS dimensions. Along with that, ablation studies further confirm that CCAS-filtered counterfactual augmentation improves the downstream classification performance in fundus images, establishing CounterFundus as a clinically-grounded, explainable artificially intelligence (XAI) framework for retinal disease detection.

The fourth workshop on Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) continues to bring together and expand a community of researchers and creative practitioners in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Interaction Design, AI, eXplainable AI (XAI), and Digital Arts to explore the role of XAI for the Arts. XAI is a key concern of Responsible and Human-Centred AI, emphasising HCI techniques that make opaque AI models more understandable to people. XAIxArts offers a distinctive lens to examine explainability through creative and artistic domains. The previous workshops explored the landscape and the speculative futures of AI in creative processes. To respond to emerging challenges and contribute to creative and societal transformation more broadly, this workshop focuses on the operationalisation of XAI in the Arts. Specifically, we will: i) critically reflect on emerging practices that encourage diversity and inclusivity in XAI; ii) collectively ideate a library of missing projects to encourage future collaborations and speculations; iii) scope the development of a resource hub for open XAIxArts projects to archive tangible XAI interventions and facilitate future community building with the wider discourse on Human-Centred AI.