Research Papers

Deep learning has enabled ECG diagnostic models with strong performance in tasks such as arrhythmia classification and abnormality detection. However, accuracy alone is insufficient for clinical deployment because it does not explain why a specific output was produced, limiting justification, error analysis, and trust. Although ECG XAI has been extensively investigated and steadily improved, practical pipelines and reporting conventions vary across studies, hindering reuse and reproducibility. To address these issues, we present Explainable AI framework for ECG models (ExECG), a Python framework that provides a three-stage pipeline: Wrapper standardizes access across heterogeneous ECG formats and intermediate representations, Explainer unifies diverse XAI methods under a shared execution protocol, and Visualizer supports consistent cross-method comparison within a unified interface. We demonstrate end-to-end usage with concise examples and two case studies, highlighting interoperable and reproducible ECG explainability.

An Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is vital in cybersecurity, detecting unauthorized activity across networks. With attacks on network layers increasing, stronger IDSs are needed. Yet most IDSs rely on centralized detection, forcing IoT nodes to ship data to a server, adding overhead and offering no privacy guarantees. Moreover, conventional models focus solely on flagging attacks, without explaining how individual features influence those decisions. This research aims to address these dual limitations by first proposing a solution for privacy preservation and then adding explainability to the new system. We introduce an innovative framework called XAI FL-IDS, which integrates Federated Learning (FL) with Explainable AI (XAI). The XAI FL-IDS system eliminates concerns over data transfer because each node trains its data locally and only sends the necessary update parameters to the server. Additionally, all detections, both at the local node and central server levels, are scrutinized using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), providing detailed insight into the decision-making process. This system consists of a central server and 10 clients and utilizes the Edge-IIoTset dataset, which is distributed among all clients with careful attention paid to class balancing. On each client, the XGBoost model is executed on local data. The proposed method demonstrates robust efficiency and strong performance in intrusion detection, achieving an accuracy of over 99% and, at times, reaching 100%. By incorporating FL, the confidentiality of the network information on every local node is guaranteed.

The microscopic examination of white blood cells (WBCs) plays a fundamental role in pathology and is essential for diagnosing blood disorders such as leukemia and anemia. To support further research on WBC images, multiple datasets have been proposed. However, they mainly annotate cell categories, and lack detailed morphological characteristics that pathologists use to explain their interpretations of cells. To address this gap, we introduce WBCAtt+, a novel dataset of WBC images densely annotated with 11 morphological attributes and five pixel-level cell components. With 113k image-level labels and 10k segmentation maps, WBCAtt+ is the first to provide comprehensive annotations for WBC images. Leveraging this dataset, we provide baseline models for attribute recognition and semantic segmentation. We also design an attribute recognition model to incorporate compositional structure of cells, further improving the recognition performance. Lastly, we showcase various applications enabled by our dataset, such as explainable AI models, including counterfactual example generation. \revision{The dataset and code are publicly available\footnote{https://doi.org/10.57967/hf/8143}}.

A Framework for Evaluating Zero-Shot Image Generation in Concept-based Explainability

Giacomo Astolfi, Matteo Bianchi, Riccardo Campi +2

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) is often criticized for failing to satisfy broad desiderata (e.g., fairness, accountability) and for limited practical value to stakeholders. This challenge partly arises because researchers across disciplines prioritize different sets of desiderata that remain underspecified and context-dependent, yet expect XAI to satisfy them simultaneously, resulting in fragmented and sometimes incompatible operationalizations. We argue that many desiderata are not independent, but instead form dependency structures in which higher-level goals (\emph{e.g.}, trust, accountability) rely on more foundational properties (\emph{e.g.}, faithfulness, robustness). Some desiderata are multi-faceted and are best understood within these structures. In particular, instead of addressing all desiderata at once, we focus on subsets of dependency structures and translate them into concrete XAI tasks, thereby decomposing research questions into benchmarkable and solvable units. To this end, we propose a three-axis taxonomy (\emph{target}, \emph{functional role}, and \emph{mode of justification}) and a three-step framework for deriving well-scoped, benchmarkable XAI tasks. Our approach builds on a systematic literature review and conceptual analysis, and supports clarifying desiderata, identifying dependencies, scoping feasibility, and delimiting the design space to derive concrete XAI tasks from abstract desiderata. We illustrate its utility through two explanatory cases, showing how the taxonomy and framework guide systematic task design and evaluation in XAI. {\color{red}{This is a preprint of a paper that will appear in AISoLA 2026.}}

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.

Trust calibration -- aligning user trust judgment with model capability -- is crucial for safe deployment of explainable AI (XAI), yet is often evaluated via global trust ratings detached from objective performance evidence. We present a preregistered, incentivized between-subject online study (N=418 representative UK sample) on explainable skin-lesion classification that disentangles expectation-setting from experienced performance. Participants completed 15 case evaluations using a fixed XAI panel (malignancy score, reliability score, and saliency map). We systematically manipulated five experimental onboarding conditions varying example-based information and limitation disclosures with five stimulus packages naturally varying observed prediction quality. Calibration was operationalized as the deviation between trust-related judgments (TAIS and case-wise ratings) and objective performance benchmarks for the encountered cases, analysed with hierarchical mixed-effects models. Only limitation disclosure for case-wise measures reliably impacts trust calibration, and short-term experience did not yield progressive calibration. Further, the experienced package of stimuli explained substantially more variance than the experimental manipulation. However, participants were hard-pressed to differentiate between case-wise perceived trust, trustworthiness, and accuracy estimation. We discuss implications for designing limitation communication and for measuring and analysing calibration metrics in XAI evaluations. All study materials and data of this study are publicly available for replication and further academic use.

Modern deep learning science often assumes that neural networks learn from a fixed data distribution. However, many practically important learning problems involve data distributions that change throughout training. How does such non-stationarity impact the inductive biases of deep learning towards models with different structural, generalisation, and safety properties? A fruitful testbed for studying inductive bias is in-context linear regression sequence modelling, where small transformers display strikingly different generalisation patterns depending on the diversity of the (fixed) training task distribution. In this paper, we explore the effect of diversifying the task distribution across training time, finding that such temporal diversity leads to an increased bias towards generalisation over memorisation.

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.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely adopted today for its ability to detect patterns, automate tasks, and reduce time and cost across various applications. Its integration into Cybersecurity has garnered significant attention, particularly in areas such as intrusion detection, malware analysis, and phishing or spam detection. As AI and cybersecurity evolve, new methods and approaches emerge regularly. Current trends include the use of Generative AI, Natural Language Processing, Federated Learning for privacy-preserving collaborative training, and eXplainable AI to ensure interpretability and trust, which are vital in cybersecurity. This paper presents an interesting review of current AI-based cybersecurity trends, focusing on intrusion detection approaches and aiming to uncover meaningful insights through comparative analysis based on the employed AI techniques and reported performance.

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.

This paper examines the opportunities, limitations, and practical considerations associated with the use of large language models (LLMs) in qualitative research. Drawing on a multidisciplinary perspective that combines expertise in qualitative methods and explainable AI, the paper argues that responsible integration of LLMs into qualitative workflows requires researchers to engage critically with a curated set of technical parameters, that is, context window constraints, temperature and top-p sampling settings, user and system prompt design, and model documentation in the form of system cards. The paper situates these considerations within the epistemological commitments of qualitative research, including reflexivity, positionality, and interpretive judgment, and discusses how the opacity of contemporary LLMs differs from earlier natural language processing tools such as topic models and lexicon-based sentiment analyzers.