Research Papers

Intelligent decision support (IDS) systems leverage artificial intelligence techniques to generate recommendations that guide human users through the decision making phases of a task. However, a key challenge is that IDS systems are not perfect, and in complex real-world scenarios may produce incorrect output or fail to work altogether. The field of explainable AI planning (XAIP) has sought to develop techniques that make the decision making of sequential decision making AI systems more explainable to end-users. Critically, prior work in applying XAIP techniques to IDS systems has assumed that the plan being proposed by the planner is always optimal, and therefore the action or plan being recommended as decision support to the user is always correct. In this work, we examine novice user interactions with a non-robust IDS system -- one that occasionally recommends the wrong action, and one that may become unavailable after users have become accustomed to its guidance. We introduce a novel explanation type, subgoal-based explanations, for planning-based IDS systems, that supplements traditional IDS output with information about the subgoal toward which the recommended action would contribute. We demonstrate that subgoal-based explanations lead to improved user task performance, improve user ability to distinguish optimal and suboptimal IDS recommendations, are preferred by users, and enable more robust user performance in the case of IDS failure

Identifying Biased Subgroups in Ranking and Classification

Eliana Pastor, Luca de Alfaro, Elena Baralis

When analyzing the behavior of machine learning algorithms, it is important to identify specific data subgroups for which the considered algorithm shows different performance with respect to the entire dataset. The intervention of domain experts is normally required to identify relevant attributes that define these subgroups. We introduce the notion of divergence to measure this performance difference and we exploit it in the context of (i) classification models and (ii) ranking applications to automatically detect data subgroups showing a significant deviation in their behavior. Furthermore, we quantify the contribution of all attributes in the data subgroup to the divergent behavior by means of Shapley values, thus allowing the identification of the most impacting attributes.

Explaining firm decisions made by algorithms in customer-facing applications is increasingly required by regulators and expected by customers. While the emerging field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has mainly focused on developing algorithms that generate such explanations, there has not yet been sufficient consideration of customers' preferences for various types and formats of explanations. We discuss theoretically and study empirically people's preferences for explanations of algorithmic decisions. We focus on three main attributes that describe automatically-generated explanations from existing XAI algorithms (format, complexity, and specificity), and capture differences across contexts (online targeted advertising vs. loan applications) as well as heterogeneity in users' cognitive styles. Despite their popularity among academics, we find that counterfactual explanations are not popular among users, unless they follow a negative outcome (e.g., loan application was denied). We also find that users are willing to tolerate some complexity in explanations. Finally, our results suggest that preferences for specific (vs. more abstract) explanations are related to the level at which the decision is construed by the user, and to the deliberateness of the user's cognitive style.

The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence requires accurate forecasts and means to understand the reasoning of artificial intelligence models behind such a forecast. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to provide cues for why a model issued a certain prediction. Such cues are of utmost importance to decision-making since they provide insights on the features that influenced most certain forecasts and let the user decide if the forecast can be trusted. Though many techniques were developed to explain black-box models, little research was done on assessing the quality of those explanations and their influence on decision-making. We propose an ontology and knowledge graph to support collecting feedback regarding forecasts, forecast explanations, recommended decision-making options, and user actions. This way, we provide means to improve forecasting models, explanations, and recommendations of decision-making options. We tailor the knowledge graph for the domain of demand forecasting and validate it on real-world data.

XAI-N: Sensor-based Robot Navigation using Expert Policies and Decision Trees

Aaron M. Roth, Jing Liang, Dinesh Manocha

We present a novel sensor-based learning navigation algorithm to compute a collision-free trajectory for a robot in dense and dynamic environments with moving obstacles or targets. Our approach uses deep reinforcement learning-based expert policy that is trained using a sim2real paradigm. In order to increase the reliability and handle the failure cases of the expert policy, we combine with a policy extraction technique to transform the resulting policy into a decision tree format. The resulting decision tree has properties which we use to analyze and modify the policy and improve performance on navigation metrics including smoothness, frequency of oscillation, frequency of immobilization, and obstruction of target. We are able to modify the policy to address these imperfections without retraining, combining the learning power of deep learning with the control of domain-specific algorithms. We highlight the benefits of our algorithm in simulated environments and navigating a Clearpath Jackal robot among moving pedestrians. (Videos at this url: https://gamma.umd.edu/researchdirections/xrl/navviper)

What Makes a Scientific Paper be Accepted for Publication?

Panagiotis Fytas, Georgios Rizos, Lucia Specia

Despite peer-reviewing being an essential component of academia since the 1600s, it has repeatedly received criticisms for lack of transparency and consistency. We posit that recent work in machine learning and explainable AI provide tools that enable insights into the decisions from a given peer review process. We start by extracting global explanations in the form of linguistic features that affect the acceptance of a scientific paper for publication on an open peer-review dataset. Second, since such global explanations do not justify causal interpretations, we provide a methodology for detecting confounding effects in natural language in order to generate causal explanations, under assumptions, in the form of lexicons. Our proposed linguistic explanation methodology indicates the following on a case dataset of ICLR submissions: a) the organising committee follows, for the most part, the recommendations of reviewers, and, b) the paper's main characteristics that led to reviewers recommending acceptance for publication are originality, clarity and substance.

Increasing number of sectors which affect human lives, are using Machine Learning (ML) tools. Hence the need for understanding their working mechanism and evaluating their fairness in decision-making, are becoming paramount, ushering in the era of Explainable AI (XAI). In this contribution we introduced a few intrinsically interpretable models which are also capable of dealing with missing values, in addition to extracting knowledge from the dataset and about the problem. These models are also capable of visualisation of the classifier and decision boundaries: they are the angle based variants of Learning Vector Quantization. We have demonstrated the algorithms on a synthetic dataset and a real-world one (heart disease dataset from the UCI repository). The newly developed classifiers helped in investigating the complexities of the UCI dataset as a multiclass problem. The performance of the developed classifiers were comparable to those reported in literature for this dataset, with additional value of interpretability, when the dataset was treated as a binary class problem.

We propose a digital twin approach to improve healthcare decision support systems with a combination of domain knowledge and data. Domain knowledge helps build decision thresholds that doctors can use to determine a risk or recommend a treatment or test based on the specific patient condition. However, these assessments tend to be highly subjective and differ from doctor to doctor and from patient to patient. We propose a system where we collate this subjective risk by compiling data from different doctors treating different patients and build a machine learning model that learns from this knowledge. Then using state-of-the-art explainability concepts we derive explanations from this model. These explanations give us a summary of different doctor domain knowledge applied in different cases to give a more generic perspective. Also these explanations are specific to a particular patient and are customized for their condition. This is a form of a digital twin for the patient that can now be used to enhance decision boundaries for earlier defined decision tables that help in diagnosis. We will show an example of running this analysis for a liver disease risk diagnosis.

The presumed data owners' right to explanations brought about by the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe has shed light on the social challenges of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we present a case study with Deep Learning (DL) experts from a research and development laboratory focused on the delivery of industrial-strength AI technologies. Our aim was to investigate the social meaning (i.e. meaning to others) that DL experts assign to what they do, given a richly contextualized and familiar domain of application. Using qualitative research techniques to collect and analyze empirical data, our study has shown that participating DL experts did not spontaneously engage into considerations about the social meaning of machine learning models that they build. Moreover, when explicitly stimulated to do so, these experts expressed expectations that, with real-world DL application, there will be available mediators to bridge the gap between technical meanings that drive DL work, and social meanings that AI technology users assign to it. We concluded that current research incentives and values guiding the participants' scientific interests and conduct are at odds with those required to face some of the scientific challenges involved in advancing XAI, and thus responding to the alleged data owners' right to explanations or similar societal demands emerging from current debates. As a concrete contribution to mitigate what seems to be a more general problem, we propose three preliminary XAI Mediation Challenges with the potential to bring together technical and social meanings of DL applications, as well as to foster much needed interdisciplinary collaboration among AI and the Social Sciences researchers.

The Twin-System Approach as One Generic Solution for XAI: An Overview of ANN-CBR Twins for Explaining Deep Learning

Mark T. Keane, Eoin M. Kenny

The notion of twin systems is proposed to address the eXplainable AI (XAI) problem, where an uninterpretable black-box system is mapped to a white-box 'twin' that is more interpretable. In this short paper, we overview very recent work that advances a generic solution to the XAI problem, the so called twin system approach. The most popular twinning in the literature is that between an Artificial Neural Networks (ANN ) as a black box and Case Based Reasoning (CBR) system as a white-box, where the latter acts as an interpretable proxy for the former. We outline how recent work reviving this idea has applied it to deep learning methods. Furthermore, we detail the many fruitful directions in which this work may be taken; such as, determining the most (i) accurate feature-weighting methods to be used, (ii) appropriate deployments for explanatory cases, (iii) useful cases of explanatory value to users.

The Role of Normware in Trustworthy and Explainable AI

Giovanni Sileno, Alexander Boer, Tom van Engers

For being potentially destructive, in practice incomprehensible and for the most unintelligible, contemporary technology is setting high challenges on our society. New conception methods are urgently required. Reorganizing ideas and discussions presented in AI and related fields, this position paper aims to highlight the importance of normware--that is, computational artifacts specifying norms--with respect to these issues, and argues for its irreducibility with respect to software by making explicit its neglected ecological dimension in the decision-making cycle.

Agentic AI represents a major shift in how autonomous systems reason, plan, and execute multi-step tasks through the coordination of Large Language Models (LLMs), Vision Language Models (VLMs), tools, and external services. While these systems enable powerful new capabilities, increasing autonomy introduces critical challenges related to explainability, accountability, robustness, and governance, especially when agent outputs influence downstream actions or decisions. Existing agentic AI implementations often emphasize functionality and scalability, yet provide limited mechanisms for understanding decision rationale or enforcing responsibility across agent interactions. This paper presents a Responsible(RAI) and Explainable(XAI) AI Agent Architecture for production-grade agentic workflows based on multi-model consensus and reasoning-layer governance. In the proposed design, a consortium of heterogeneous LLM and VLM agents independently generates candidate outputs from a shared input context, explicitly exposing uncertainty, disagreement, and alternative interpretations. A dedicated reasoning agent then performs structured consolidation across these outputs, enforcing safety and policy constraints, mitigating hallucinations and bias, and producing auditable, evidence-backed decisions. Explainability is achieved through explicit cross-model comparison and preserved intermediate outputs, while responsibility is enforced through centralized reasoning-layer control and agent-level constraints. We evaluate the architecture across multiple real-world agentic AI workflows, demonstrating that consensus-driven reasoning improves robustness, transparency, and operational trust across diverse application domains. This work provides practical guidance for designing agentic AI systems that are autonomous and scalable, yet responsible and explainable by construction.