Explanation techniques that synthesize small, interpretable changes to a given image while producing desired changes in the model prediction have become popular for introspecting black-box models. Commonly referred to as counterfactuals, the synthesized explanations are required to contain discernible changes (for easy interpretability) while also being realistic (consistency to the data manifold). In this paper, we focus on the case where we have access only to the trained deep classifier and not the actual training data. While the problem of inverting deep models to synthesize images from the training distribution has been explored, our goal is to develop a deep inversion approach to generate counterfactual explanations for a given query image. Despite their effectiveness in conditional image synthesis, we show that existing deep inversion methods are insufficient for producing meaningful counterfactuals. We propose DISC (Deep Inversion for Synthesizing Counterfactuals) that improves upon deep inversion by utilizing (a) stronger image priors, (b) incorporating a novel manifold consistency objective and (c) adopting a progressive optimization strategy. We find that, in addition to producing visually meaningful explanations, the counterfactuals from DISC are effective at learning classifier decision boundaries and are robust to unknown test-time corruptions.

To explain the decision of any regression and classification model, we extend the notion of probabilistic sufficient explanations (P-SE). For each instance, this approach selects the minimal subset of features that is sufficient to yield the same prediction with high probability, while removing other features. The crux of P-SE is to compute the conditional probability of maintaining the same prediction. Therefore, we introduce an accurate and fast estimator of this probability via random Forests for any data $(\boldsymbol{X}, Y)$ and show its efficiency through a theoretical analysis of its consistency. As a consequence, we extend the P-SE to regression problems. In addition, we deal with non-discrete features, without learning the distribution of $\boldsymbol{X}$ nor having the model for making predictions. Finally, we introduce local rule-based explanations for regression/classification based on the P-SE and compare our approaches w.r.t other explainable AI methods. These methods are available as a Python Package.

Counterfactual explanations are emerging as an attractive option for providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions. As they are deployed in critical applications (e.g. law enforcement, financial lending), it becomes important to ensure that we clearly understand the vulnerabilties of these methods and find ways to address them. However, there is little understanding of the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of counterfactual explanations. In this work, we introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. More specifically, we show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a novel objective to train seemingly fair models where counterfactual explanations find much lower cost recourse under a slight perturbation. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors. We perform experiments on loan and violent crime prediction data sets where certain subgroups achieve up to 20x lower cost recourse under the perturbation. These results raise concerns regarding the dependability of current counterfactual explanation techniques, which we hope will inspire investigations in robust counterfactual explanations.

Large language models exhibit intelligence without genuine epistemic understanding, exposing a key gap: the absence of epistemic architecture. This paper introduces the Structured Cognitive Loop (SCL) as an executable epistemological framework for emergent intelligence. Unlike traditional AI research asking "what is intelligence?" (ontological), SCL asks "under what conditions does cognition emerge?" (epistemological). Grounded in philosophy of mind and cognitive phenomenology, SCL bridges conceptual philosophy and implementable cognition. Drawing on process philosophy, enactive cognition, and extended mind theory, we define intelligence not as a property but as a performed process -- a continuous loop of judgment, memory, control, action, and regulation. SCL makes three contributions. First, it operationalizes philosophical insights into computationally interpretable structures, enabling "executable epistemology" -- philosophy as structural experiment. Second, it shows that functional separation within cognitive architecture yields more coherent and interpretable behavior than monolithic prompt based systems, supported by agent evaluations. Third, it redefines intelligence: not representational accuracy but the capacity to reconstruct its own epistemic state through intentional understanding. This framework impacts philosophy of mind, epistemology, and AI. For philosophy, it allows theories of cognition to be enacted and tested. For AI, it grounds behavior in epistemic structure rather than statistical regularity. For epistemology, it frames knowledge not as truth possession but as continuous reconstruction within a phenomenologically coherent loop. We situate SCL within debates on cognitive phenomenology, emergence, normativity, and intentionality, arguing that real progress requires not larger models but architectures that realize cognitive principles structurally.

Continual learning constrains models to learn new tasks over time without forgetting what they have already learned. A key challenge in this setting is catastrophic forgetting, where learning new information causes the model to lose its performance on previous tasks. Recently, explainable AI has been proposed as a promising way to better understand and reduce forgetting. In particular, self-explainable models are useful because they generate explanations during prediction, which can help preserve knowledge. However, most existing explainable approaches use post-hoc explanations or require additional memory for each new task, resulting in limited scalability. In this work, we introduce CIP-Net, an exemplar-free self-explainable prototype-based model designed for continual learning. CIP-Net avoids storing past examples and maintains a simple architecture, while still providing useful explanations and strong performance. We demonstrate that CIP-Net achieves state-of-the-art performances compared to previous exemplar-free and self-explainable methods in both task-and class-incremental settings, while bearing significantly lower memory-related overhead. This makes it a practical and interpretable solution for continual learning.

The emergence of transformative technologies often surfaces deep societal divisions, nowhere more evident than in contemporary debates about artificial intelligence (AI). A striking feature of these divisions is that they persist despite shared interests in ensuring that AI benefits humanity and avoiding catastrophic outcomes. This paper analyzes contemporary debates about AI risk, parsing the differences between the "doomer" and "boomer" perspectives into definitional, factual, causal, and moral premises to identify key points of contention. We find that differences in perspectives about existential risk ("X-risk") arise fundamentally from differences in causal premises about design vs. emergence in complex systems, while differences in perspectives about employment risks ("E-risks") pertain to different causal premises about the applicability of past theories (evolution) vs their inapplicability (revolution). Disagreements about these two forms of AI risk appear to share two properties: neither involves significant disagreements on moral values and both can be described in terms of differing views on the extent of boundedness of human rationality. Our approach to analyzing reasoning chains at scale, using an ensemble of LLMs to parse textual data, can be applied to identify key points of contention in debates about risk to the public in any arena.

Explainable AI (XAI) presents useful tools to facilitate transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning systems. However, current evaluations of system explainability often rely heavily on subjective user surveys, which may not adequately capture the effectiveness of explanations. This paper critiques the overreliance on user satisfaction metrics and explores whether these can differentiate between meaningful (actionable) and vacuous (placebic) explanations. In experiments involving optimal Social Security filing age selection tasks, participants used one of three protocols: no explanations, placebic explanations, and actionable explanations. Participants who received actionable explanations significantly outperformed the other groups in objective measures of their mental model, but users rated placebic and actionable explanations as equally satisfying. This suggests that subjective surveys alone fail to capture whether explanations truly support users in building useful domain understanding. We propose that future evaluations of agent explanation capabilities should integrate objective task performance metrics alongside subjective assessments to more accurately measure explanation quality.

We present IXAM, an Interactive eXplainability framework for Authorship Attribution Models. Given an authorship attribution (AA) task and an embedding-based AA model, our tool enables users to interactively explore the model's embedding space and construct an explanation of the model's prediction as a set of writing style features at different levels of granularity. Through a user evaluation, we demonstrate the value of our framework compared to predefined stylistic explanations.

Recent black-box counterfactual generation frameworks fail to take into account the semantic content of the proposed edits, while relying heavily on training to guide the generation process. We propose a novel, plug-and-play black-box counterfactual generation framework, which suggests step-by-step edits based on theoretical guarantees of optimal edits to produce human-level counterfactual explanations with zero training. Our framework utilizes a pre-trained image editing diffusion model, and operates without access to the internals of the classifier, leading to an explainable counterfactual generation process. Throughout our experimentation, we showcase the explanatory gap between human reasoning and neural model behavior by utilizing both Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Vision Transformer (ViT) and Large Vision Language Model (LVLM) classifiers, substantiated through a comprehensive human evaluation.

Agentic AI systems, software agents with autonomy, decision-making ability, and adaptability, are increasingly used to execute complex tasks on behalf of organisations. Most such systems rely on Large Language Models (LLMs), whose broad semantic capabilities enable powerful language processing but lack explicit, institution-specific grounding. In enterprises, data rarely comes with an inspectable semantic layer, and constructing one typically requires labour-intensive "data archaeology": cleaning, modelling, and curating knowledge into ontologies, taxonomies, and other formal structures. At the same time, explainability methods such as saliency maps expose an "interpretability gap": they highlight what the model attends to but not why, leaving decision processes opaque. In this preprint, we present a case study, developed by Kaiasm and Avantra AI through their work with The Turing Way Practitioners Hub, a forum developed under the InnovateUK BridgeAI program. This study presents a collaborative human-AI approach to building an inspectable semantic layer for Agentic AI. AI agents first propose candidate knowledge structures from diverse data sources; domain experts then validate, correct, and extend these structures, with their feedback used to improve subsequent models. Authors show how this process captures tacit institutional knowledge, improves response quality and efficiency, and mitigates institutional amnesia. We argue for a shift from post-hoc explanation to justifiable Agentic AI, where decisions are grounded in explicit, inspectable evidence and reasoning accessible to both experts and non-specialists.