Research Papers

Automated optimisation is increasingly adopted in industrial processes, yet a trust gap persists between engineers who design these algorithms and operators who must act on their recommendations. Explainable AI methods like SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) have transformed interpretability for machine learning predictions; optimisation outputs could benefit from similar techniques. We present an approach that integrates Implicit Function Theorem (IFT) based sensitivity analysis with SHAP attribution and narrative generation via Large Language Models (LLM), producing explanations tailored for operators. Our approach leverages IFT to compute exact parameter sensitivities $\partial p^*/\partial x$ from the optimality conditions, enabling efficient GradientSHAP computation. For an industrial High Pressure Grinding Roll (HPGR) control optimisation problem with 22 features, we achieve equivalent SHAP attributions (correlation $>$0.99 with KernelSHAP) with over 40$\times$ speedup, enabling real-time natural language explanations. We validate on industrial scenarios and present feedback from domain experts on generated explanations.

Compact medical-image classifiers need efficiency and interpretable evidence, yet these goals are often addressed separately. We introduce qZACH-ViT, a quantization-aware extension of the zero-token (CLS-token-free), position-free ZACH-ViT backbone with recursive intrinsic patch-level class evidence. We also introduce Recursive Attribution-Stabilized Optimization (RASO), which norm-matches classification and attribution gradients and removes attribution components that conflict with classification. We evaluate four controlled conditions on seven MedMNIST datasets using 50 training images per class and ten fixed seeds, completing 280 runs. All 210 qZACH-ViT checkpoints are converted to executable mixed-precision ONNX INT8 graphs containing 16 signed INT8 MatMulInteger projections with INT32 accumulation. Deployed mixed-precision INT8 qZACH-ViT with Adam improves the FP32 ZACH-ViT baseline mean on all seven datasets, with a mean paired gain of 0.0313 in the dataset-specific primary metric; qZACH-ViT with RASO yields a mean gain of 0.0368. Across 964,920 source-to-INT8 test comparisons, prediction agreement is 99.9751\%, with a mean absolute primary-metric change of 0.000133 and a maximum of 0.004386. Across 3,600 matched intrinsic maps, mean cosine similarity is 0.999955, mean rank correlation is 0.9944, and mean top-10\% overlap is 0.9692. ONNX artifacts are 70.0\% smaller than source checkpoints and provide $1.41\times$ and $2.39\times$ end-to-end CPU speedups with one and four threads. RASO significantly reduces sufficiency error and improves input-noise stability over Adam with the same attribution loss, but does not dominate every predictive or explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) metric. These results establish qZACH-ViT as a deployable compact intrinsically explainable model and RASO as a targeted stability-oriented optimization procedure.

The increasing complexity of state-of-the-art machine learning models has made their behavior progressively harder to interpret, spurring rapid advancements in the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Among many methods proposed, perturbation-based approaches play a major role. By systematically altering (perturbing) input features, these approaches measure the impact on the model's predictions. For image data, traditional perturbation techniques, often involve replacing pixel values e.g., with a pre-defined color. However, such approaches, but also more refined deterministic techniques, generate unrealistic out-of-distribution samples and often leave visible artifacts, which can mislead the model and compromise explanation quality. In this work, we adjust LIME, a widely used perturbation-based method, to demonstrate how generative inpainting can improve perturbation-based explanations for images. We achieve photorealistic perturbed samples that align better with the original data distribution and enhance explanation quality.

Moral-reward RL can make language-model agents more cooperative, but whether that alignment survives adversarial persona pressure is unknown. Such attacks are realistic: retrieved context, tool outputs, or multi-turn framing can all inject role instructions that compete with the agent's moral objective. We red-team morally trained Gemma-2-27B/9B and Llama-3.1-8B agents with five persona attacks, then probe causality with noise-reward controls, adversarial PPO, representation analysis, steering, and head ablations. At 27B, moral RL cuts mean adversarial degradation by 5.2x but costs ~11pp ETHICS accuracy; across 205 scenarios and 5 seeds, reasoning-level moral reward yields 5.8x robustness while a matched random reward yields none. The training also reshapes representation geometry (mean CKA 0.82/0.83 vs. 0.98 for noise), moves peak attack processing 8 layers earlier, and exposes a rank-1 L21 direction that recovers 83% of full PPO's average robustness. One failure mode survives all of this. Against Fiction role-play, L21 steering recovers only 29% of the gap, and head ablation finds 38 compliance heads competing with 25 alignment heads. Moral RL thus builds robustness that is partly linear and partly circuit-distributed, transferable through activation steering, yet still beaten by named-character role-play.

The banking sector increasingly relies on automated systems to monitor electronic transactions for signs of fraud, yet conventional rule-based approaches struggle with high false-positive rates and offer no justification for their outputs, limiting their utility for compliance teams. This paper introduces an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) framework tailored for banking transaction anomaly detection within internal audit workflows. An Isolation Forest (iForest) model performs unsupervised anomaly scoring, while a SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) layer provides transaction-level, feature-attributed explanations grounded in cooperative game theory [8]. A lightweight Streamlit dashboard renders these outputs in a form accessible to audit professionals without machine learning expertise. Evaluation on a synthetic banking dataset yields 0.91 precision and 0.88 recall, outperforming three unsupervised baselines. Expert feedback confirms that feature-level explanations measurably improve auditor confidence and decision quality. The framework advances the practical deployment of accountable, transparent AI in regulated financial environments.

Explaining Reinforcement Learning Agents via Inductive Logic Programming

Celeste Veronese, Edoardo Zorzi, Daniele Meli +1

Explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL) seeks to make Reinforcement Learning (RL) policies more transparent and interpretable, a key requirement in safety-critical and human-centric scenarios. However, it is mostly based on user studies, thus targeting the needs of a specific audience and lacking shared evaluation metrics. On the other hand, logic-based approaches within eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) provide compact, human-readable abstractions of decision-making. However, the systematic quantification of the explainability degree of logical representations remains an open problem. This work aims to advance the state of the art in XRL by introducing objective and planning-oriented metrics for policy explainability in RL settings. At the same time, it contributes to the field of logic for XAI by providing a principled way to quantify the explainability of logical rules, moving beyond common-sense assessments and simple propositional fragments. We employ Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) to extract symbolic representations of RL policies and define a novel set of explainability metrics, including activation rate, feature coverage, syntactic distance and semantic distance. These metrics quantify alignment between symbolic rules and agent behavior, the role of features in decision-making, and the evolution of policies during training and across agents in single and multi-agent RL. Experiments across different RL domains show that the proposed metrics highlight action-specific learning dynamics beyond global return, provide fine-grained insights into domain features beyond classical approaches for global feature importance estimation, and uncover coordination, specialization, and adaptation patterns in MARL. Moreover, they provide crucial insights for the transfer and generalization of action-specific policies.

Student burnout is highly prevalent in higher education, with reported rates ranging from 12% to over 70% and consistently exceeding those of the working population - yet it is typically identified only retrospectively, after academic decline has already occurred. A contributing factor is that students have little structured visibility into their own study behaviour, and existing productivity tools record activity without interpreting it. This paper presents RIACT (Record, Insight, Analyze, Coach, Track), a web-based application that combines structured study session logging with a hybrid AI architecture to surface personalized insights and early burnout signals. Students log sessions by location and time; the system computes net focus time by accounting for breaks, detects burnout signals through transparent, deterministic rules operating on week-over-week behavioural comparisons, and uses a large language model - constrained to a fixed output schema - to contextualize patterns and generate personalized recommendations. The design embeds responsible AI principles throughout: warnings are governed by auditable rules rather than model judgement, all output is framed as an observation rather than a diagnosis and data collection is limited to self-logged behavioural fields. We describe the system's design rationale, situate it within the literature on student burnout and explainable AI in education and propose an evaluation framework for validating its behavioural signals against established burnout instruments.

This position paper argues that human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) should incorporate insights from the psychology of information seeking. Drawing on Sharot and Sunstein's framework of information-seeking motives, we propose that people evaluate whether to engage with explanations based on three types of expected utility: instrumental (will it help me act better?), hedonic (will it make me feel better?), and cognitive (will it improve my understanding?). Each utility is estimated through a lens shaped by well-documented cognitive biases, including illusion of control, automation bias, unrealistic optimism, impact bias, overconfidence, and confirmation bias. These biases can lead to two failure modes: excessive information-seeking that fragments attention without improving decisions, and insufficient information-seeking that leaves critical risks and misunderstandings unexamined. This challenge is particularly acute for agentic AI systems, where explanations must support not just understanding a single output but anticipating cascading actions, assessing risks, and deciding when to intervene. By integrating information-seeking psychology into HCXAI, we advocate for a shift from making explanations available to making them sought: designing systems that account for when and why users actually want to know.

"Trust Junk" Leads to Unjustified Support for Highly Discriminatory Predictive Models

Michael Correll, Lucy Havens, Mahsan Nourani

The persuasive power of data visualizations can go awry: for instance, in an explainable AI (XAI) context, visualizations can produce over-trust of predictive models. In this paper, we use a crowdsourced study to show that providing accurate (but superfluous or irrelevant) data in a model explanation can, in fact, result in unjustified trust and other positive beliefs about a model, even when the model is patently discriminatory and unfair. Our results suggest that XAI designers and developers need to consider the implicit or explicit rhetorics of their work, and beware of the potential of visualizations to imbue models with unearned trust.

Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs). Yet agreement in final labels does not show that human annotators and models rely on the same moral grounds. Two agents may reach the same judgment while appealing to different principles, contextual assumptions, or interpretations of the situation. We test this distinction using a curated 500-item ETHICS-derived benchmark spanning five domains of moral judgment, with new human annotator and LLM annotations of both final labels and supporting rationales. Across frontier and open model families, agreement with human annotator majority labels is often high. However, rationale-level analysis reveals systematic divergence in the moral grounds expressed by human annotators and models. In particular, models redistribute attention across categories such as harm, respect, promise-keeping, justice, desert, and excuse relevance, even when their final labels match the human annotator majority. Our results show that agreement should not be treated as equivalent to alignment. Label-based evaluation can therefore be misleadingly reassuring unless complemented by analysis of the reasons, principles, and moral priorities expressed in model judgments.

Evaluating RE Practices for Explainability: Synthesizing Insights from Daimler Truck into an Explainable RE Framework Proposal

Umm-e- Habiba, Lucas Mauser, Jonas Fritzsch +2

Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains. Although prior research has proposed frameworks, patterns, and user-centered approaches to support explainability, there is limited empirical understanding of how existing Requirements Engineering (RE) practices support explainability requirements across the RE lifecycle, especially in an industrial context. This paper reports early findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated using established RE techniques. We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study with eight practitioners at Daimler Truck, employing think-aloud protocols and moderated group discussions across requirements elicitation, specification, and validation steps. Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty. These findings indicate that current RE practices provide limited support to systematically address explainability requirements. The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.

Explainable machine learning (XML) pipelines applied to composite mental health outcomes can produce apparently-robust, cross-population-stable risk hierarchies that are largely artefacts of how the outcome was constructed. We demonstrate this using an ElasticNet pipeline applied to 886 medical students at the University of Lausanne (primary cohort, 2022), validated across 2,580 longitudinal observations at three time points and 701 non-medical students from eight faculties; all three datasets share identical instruments. The pipeline produces a hierarchy in which trait anxiety and health satisfaction dominate wherever the outcome is measured, with Kendall $τ= 1.0$ for the top-two positions across all five evaluation sets and consistent transfer performance ($R^2$: 0.41-0.49). Two residualization experiments, which isolate shared variance between correlated variables via regression, reveal the mechanism: when trait anxiety (STAI-T) is residualized against the co-included depression subscale (CES-D, $r = 0.72$), model $R^2$ drops from 0.41 to 0.16 and STAI-T falls from rank 1 to rank 6; when burnout subscales are residualized against CES-D, $R^2$ collapses to 0.016. Prediction intervals average 35.4 units on a 0-100 scale (2.4 outcome standard deviations), independently ruling out individual-level deployment. The residualization protocol is the paper's transferable contribution: any XAI study combining correlated predictor and outcome constructs should apply this check before interpreting apparent stability as a finding.