Research Papers

Purpose: Understanding a technical artifact requires grasping both its internal structure (Architecture) and its purpose and significance (Relevance), as formalized by Dual Nature Theory. This controlled experimental study investigates whether how explainers address these perspectives affects explainees' understanding. Methods: In a between-subjects experiment, 104 participants received explanations of the board game Quarto! from trained confederates in one of three conditions: Architecture-focused (A), Relevance-focused (R), or Integrated (AR). Understanding was assessed on comprehension (knowing that) and enabledness (knowing how). Results: The A and R conditions produced equivalent understanding despite different explanation content. The AR condition yielded significantly higher enabledness than the focused conditions combined $\mathrm{F}(1, 102) = 4.83$, $p = .030$, $η^2_p = .045$}, while no differences emerged for comprehension. Conclusion: Integrating Architecture and Relevance specifically enhances explainees' ability to apply their understanding in practice, suggesting that fostering agency with technical artifacts requires bridging both perspectives. This has implications for technology education and explainable AI design.

Research on explainable AI (XAI) has frequently focused on explaining model predictions. More recently, methods have been proposed to explain prediction uncertainty by attributing it to input features (uncertainty attributions). However, the evaluation of these methods remains inconsistent as studies rely on heterogeneous proxy tasks and metrics, hindering comparability. We address this by aligning uncertainty attributions with the well-established Co-12 framework for XAI evaluation. We propose concrete implementations for the correctness, consistency, continuity, and compactness properties. Additionally, we introduce conveyance, a property tailored to uncertainty attributions that evaluates whether controlled increases in epistemic uncertainty reliably propagate to feature-level attributions. We demonstrate our evaluation framework with eight metrics across combinations of uncertainty quantification and feature attribution methods on tabular and image data. Our experiments show that gradient-based methods consistently outperform perturbation-based approaches in consistency and conveyance, while Monte-Carlo dropconnect outperforms Monte-Carlo dropout in most metrics. Although most metrics rank the methods consistently across samples, inter-method agreement remains low. This suggests no single metric sufficiently evaluates uncertainty attribution quality. The proposed evaluation framework contributes to the body of knowledge by establishing a foundation for systematic comparison and development of uncertainty attribution methods.

Dissecting Model Failures in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Segmentation through Explainability-Driven Analysis

Abu Noman Md Sakib, Merjulah Roby, Zijie Zhang +3

Computed tomography image segmentation of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) often fails because the models assign internal focus to irrelevant structures or do not focus on thin, low-contrast targets. Where the model looks is the primary training signal, and thus we propose an Explainable AI (XAI) guided encoder shaping framework. Our method computes a dense, attribution-based encoder focus map ("XAI field") from the final encoder block and uses it in two complementary ways: (i) we align the predicted probability mass to the XAI field to promote agreement between focus and output; and (ii) we route the field into a lightweight refinement pathway and a confidence prior that modulates logits at inference, suppressing distractors while preserving subtle structures. The objective terms serve only as control signals; the contribution is the integration of attribution guidance into representation and decoding. We evaluate clinically validated challenging cases curated for failure-prone scenarios. Compared to a base SAM setup, our implementation yields substantial improvements. The observed gains suggest that explicitly optimizing encoder focus via XAI guidance is a practical and effective principle for reliable segmentation in complex scenarios.

Reliable photovoltaic defect identification is essential for maintaining energy yield, ensuring warranty compliance, and enabling scalable inspection of rapidly expanding solar fleets. Although recent advances in computer vision have improved automated defect detection, most existing systems operate as opaque classifiers that provide limited diagnostic insight for high-stakes energy infrastructure. Here we introduce REVL-PV, a vision-language framework that embeds domain-specific diagnostic reasoning into multimodal learning across electroluminescence, thermal, and visible-light imagery. By requiring the model to link visual evidence to plausible defect mechanisms before classification, the framework produces structured diagnostic reports aligned with professional photovoltaic inspection practice. Evaluated on 1,927 real-world modules spanning eight defect categories, REVL-PV achieves 93\% classification accuracy while producing interpretable diagnostic rationales and maintaining strong robustness under realistic image corruptions. A blind concordance study with a certified solar inspection expert shows strong semantic alignment between model explanations and expert assessments across defect identification, root-cause attribution, and visual descriptions. These results demonstrate that reasoning-aware multimodal learning establishes a general paradigm for trustworthy AI-assisted inspection of photovoltaic energy infrastructure.

Shaping Scientific Explanations to Expert Perspectives with Persona-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning

Susana Nunes, Tiago Guerreiro, Catia Pesquita

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.

Reliable anomaly detection in distributed power plant monitoring systems is essential for ensuring operational continuity and reducing maintenance costs, particularly in regions where telecom operators heavily rely on diesel generators. However, this task is challenged by extreme class imbalance, lack of interpretability, and potential fairness issues across regional clusters. In this work, we propose a supervised ML framework that integrates ensemble methods (LightGBM, XGBoost, Random Forest, CatBoost, GBDT, AdaBoost) and baseline models (Support Vector Machine, K-Nearrest Neighbors, Multilayer Perceptrons, and Logistic Regression) with advanced resampling techniques (SMOTE with Tomek Links and ENN) to address imbalance in a dataset of diesel generator operations in Cameroon. Interpretability is achieved through SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), while fairness is quantified using the Disparate Impact Ratio (DIR) across operational clusters. We further evaluate model generalization using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) to capture domain shifts between regions. Experimental results show that ensemble models consistently outperform baselines, with LightGBM achieving an F1-score of 0.99 and minimal bias across clusters (DIR $\approx 0.95$). SHAP analysis highlights fuel consumption rate and runtime per day as dominant predictors, providing actionable insights for operators. Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to balance performance, interpretability, and fairness in anomaly detection, paving the way for more equitable and explainable AI systems in industrial power management. {\color{black} Finally, beyond offline evaluation, we also discuss how the trained models can be deployed in practice for real-time monitoring. We show how containerized services can process in real-time, deliver low-latency predictions, and provide interpretable outputs for operators.

This paper computationally investigates whether thought requires a language-like format, as posited by the Language of Thought (LoT) hypothesis. We introduce the ``AI Private Language'' thought experiment: if two artificial agents develop an efficient, inscrutable communication protocol via multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), and their performance declines when forced to use a human-comprehensible language, this Efficiency Attenuation Phenomenon (EAP) challenges the LoT. We formalize this in a cooperative navigation task under partial observability. Results show that agents with an emergent protocol achieve 50.5\% higher efficiency than those using a pre-defined, human-like symbolic protocol, confirming the EAP. This suggests optimal collaborative cognition in these systems is not mediated by symbolic structures but is naturally coupled with sub-symbolic computations. The work bridges philosophy, cognitive science, and AI, arguing for pluralism in cognitive architectures and highlighting implications for AI ethics.

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.

Existing XAI metrics measure faithfulness for a single model, ignoring model multiplicity where near-optimal classifiers rely on different or spurious acoustic cues. In noisy farm environments, stationary artifacts such as ventilation noise can produce explanations that are faithful yet unreliable, as masking-based metrics fail to penalize redundant shortcuts. We propose AGRI-Fidelity, a reliability-oriented evaluation framework for listenable explanations in poultry disease detection without spatial ground truth. The method combines cross-model consensus with cyclic temporal permutation to construct null distributions and compute a False Discovery Rate (FDR), suppressing stationary artifacts while preserving time-localized bioacoustic markers. Across real and controlled datasets, AGRI-Fidelity effectively provides reliability-aware discrimination for all data points versus masking-based metrics.

Attribution methods in explainable AI rely on upsampling techniques that were designed for natural images, not saliency maps. Standard bilinear and bicubic interpolation systematically corrupts attribution signals through aliasing, ringing, and boundary bleeding, producing spurious high-importance regions that misrepresent model reasoning. We identify that the core issue is treating attribution upsampling as an interpolation problem that operates in isolation from the model's reasoning, rather than a mass redistribution problem where model-derived semantic boundaries must govern how importance flows. We present Universal Semantic-Aware Upsampling (USU), a principled method that reformulates upsampling through ratio-form mass redistribution operators, provably preserving attribution mass and relative importance ordering. Extending the axiomatic tradition of feature attribution to upsampling, we formalize four desiderata for faithful upsampling and prove that interpolation structurally violates three of them. These same three force any redistribution operator into a ratio form; the fourth selects the unique potential within this family, yielding USU. Controlled experiments on models with known attribution priors verify USU's formal guarantees; evaluation across ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CUB-200 confirms consistent faithfulness improvements and qualitatively superior, semantically coherent explanations.

Symbolic regression aims to replace black-box predictors with concise analytical expressions that can be inspected and validated in scientific machine learning. Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) are well suited to this goal because each connection between adjacent units (an "edge") is parametrised by a learnable univariate function that can, in principle, be replaced by a symbolic operator. In practice, however, symbolic extraction is a bottleneck: the standard KAN-to-symbol approach fits operators to each learned edge function in isolation, making the discrete choice sensitive to initialisation and non-convex parameter fitting, and ignoring how local substitutions interact through the full network. We study in-context symbolic regression for operator extraction in KANs, and present two complementary instantiations. Greedy in-context Symbolic Regression (GSR) performs greedy, in-context selection by choosing edge replacements according to end-to-end loss improvement after brief fine-tuning. Gated Matching Pursuit (GMP) amortises this in-context selection by training a differentiable gated operator layer that places an operator library behind sparse gates on each edge; after convergence, gates are discretised (optionally followed by a short in-context greedy refinement pass). We quantify robustness via one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) hyper-parameter sweeps and assess both predictive error and qualitative consistency of recovered formulas. Across several experiments, greedy in-context symbolic regression achieves up to 99.8% reduction in median OFAT test MSE.

Explainability is widely regarded as essential for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. However, the metrics commonly used to evaluate counterfactual explanations are algorithmic evaluation metrics that are rarely validated against human judgments of explanation quality. This raises the question of whether such metrics meaningfully reflect user perceptions. We address this question through an empirical study that directly compares algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments across three datasets. Participants rated counterfactual explanations along multiple dimensions of perceived quality, which we relate to a comprehensive set of standard counterfactual metrics. We analyze both individual relationships and the extent to which combinations of metrics can predict human assessments. Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent. Moreover, increasing the number of metrics used in predictive models does not lead to reliable improvements, indicating structural limitations in how current metrics capture criteria relevant for humans. Overall, our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users, underscoring the need for more human-centered approaches to evaluating explainable artificial intelligence.