Large-scale AI models such as GPT -4 have accelerated the deployment of artificial intelligence across critical domains including law, healthcare, and finance, raising urgent questions about trust and transparency. This study investigates the relationship between explainability and user trust in AI systems through a quantitative experimental design. Using an interactive, web-based loan approval simulation, we compare how different types of explanations--ranging from basic feature importance to interactive counterfactuals--influence perceived trust. Results suggest that interactivity enhances both user engagement and confidence, and that the clarity and relevance of explanations are key determinants of trust. These findings contribute empirical evidence to the growing field of human-centered explainable AI, highlighting measurable effects of explainability design on user perception.

Galaxy morphologies play an essential role in the study of the evolution of galaxies. The determination of morphologies is laborious for a large amount of data giving rise to machine learning-based approaches. Unfortunately, most of these approaches offer no insight into how the model works and make the results difficult to understand and explain. We here propose to extend a classical encoder-decoder architecture with invertible flow, allowing us to not only obtain a good predictive performance but also provide additional information about the decision process with counterfactual explanations.

Computer models are indispensable tools for understanding the Earth system. While high-resolution operational models have achieved many successes, they exhibit persistent biases, particularly in simulating extreme events and statistical distributions. In contrast, coarse-grained idealized models isolate fundamental processes and can be precisely calibrated to excel in characterizing specific dynamical and statistical features. However, different models remain siloed by disciplinary boundaries. By leveraging the complementary strengths of models of varying complexity, we develop an explainable AI framework for Earth system emulators. It bridges the model hierarchy through a reconfigured latent data assimilation technique, uniquely suited to exploit the sparse output from the idealized models. The resulting bridging model inherits the high resolution and comprehensive variables of operational models while achieving global accuracy enhancements through targeted improvements from idealized models. Crucially, the mechanism of AI provides a clear rationale for these advancements, moving beyond black-box correction to physically insightful understanding in a computationally efficient framework that enables effective physics-assisted digital twins and uncertainty quantification. We demonstrate its power by significantly correcting biases in CMIP6 simulations of El Niño spatiotemporal patterns, leveraging statistically accurate idealized models. This work also highlights the importance of pushing idealized model development and advancing communication between modeling communities.

As AI becomes more common in everyday living, there is an increasing demand for intelligent systems that are both performant and understandable. Explainable AI (XAI) systems aim to provide comprehensible explanations of decisions and predictions. At present, however, evaluation processes are rather technical and not sufficiently focused on the needs of human users. Consequently, evaluation studies involving human users can serve as a valuable guide for conducting user studies. This paper presents a comprehensive review of 65 user studies evaluating XAI systems across different domains and application contexts. As a guideline for XAI developers, we provide a holistic overview of the properties of XAI systems and evaluation metrics focused on human users (human-centered). We propose objectives for the human-centered design (design goals) of XAI systems. To incorporate users' specific characteristics, design goals are adapted to users with different levels of AI expertise (AI novices and data experts). In this regard, we provide an extension to existing XAI evaluation and design frameworks. The first part of our results includes the analysis of XAI system characteristics. An important finding is the distinction between the core system and the XAI explanation, which together form the whole system. Further results include the distinction of evaluation metrics into affection towards the system, cognition, usability, interpretability, and explanation metrics. Furthermore, the users, along with their specific characteristics and behavior, can be assessed. For AI novices, the relevant extended design goals include responsible use, acceptance, and usability. For data experts, the focus is performance-oriented and includes human-AI collaboration and system and user task performance.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence has become a crucial area of research, aiming to demystify the decision-making processes of deep learning models. Among various explainability techniques, counterfactual explanations have been proven particularly promising, as they offer insights into model behavior by highlighting minimal changes that would alter a prediction. Despite their potential, these explanations are often complex and technical, making them difficult for non-experts to interpret. To address this challenge, we propose a novel pipeline that leverages Language Models, large and small, to compose narratives for counterfactual explanations. We employ knowledge distillation techniques along with a refining mechanism to enable Small Language Models to perform comparably to their larger counterparts while maintaining robust reasoning abilities. In addition, we introduce a simple but effective evaluation method to assess natural language narratives, designed to verify whether the models' responses are in line with the factual, counterfactual ground truth. As a result, our proposed pipeline enhances both the reasoning capabilities and practical performance of student models, making them more suitable for real-world use cases.

In a world that constantly changes, it is crucial to understand how those changes impact different systems, such as industrial manufacturing or critical infrastructure. Explaining critical changes, referred to as concept drift in the field of machine learning, is the first step towards enabling targeted interventions to avoid or correct model failures, as well as malfunctions and errors in the physical world. Therefore, in this work, we extend model-based drift explanations towards causal explanations, which increases the actionability of the provided explanations. We evaluate our explanation strategy on a number of use cases, demonstrating the practical usefulness of our framework, which isolates the causally relevant features impacted by concept drift and, thus, allows for targeted intervention.

Counter-speech (CS) is a key strategy for mitigating online Hate Speech (HS), yet defining the criteria to assess its effectiveness remains an open challenge. We propose a novel computational framework for CS effectiveness classification, grounded in linguistics, communication and argumentation concepts. Our framework defines six core dimensions - Clarity, Evidence, Emotional Appeal, Rebuttal, Audience Adaptation, and Fairness - which we use to annotate 4,214 CS instances from two benchmark datasets, resulting in a novel linguistic resource released to the community. In addition, we propose two classification strategies, multi-task and dependency-based, achieving strong results (0.94 and 0.96 average F1 respectively on both expert- and user-written CS), outperforming standard baselines, and revealing strong interdependence among dimensions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts, where their opacity raises significant challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. The so-called ``black box problem'' undermines the legitimacy of automated decision-making, as affected individuals often lack access to meaningful explanations. In response, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has proposed a variety of methods to enhance transparency, ranging from example-based and rule-based techniques to hybrid and argumentation-based approaches. This paper promotes computational models of arguments and their role in providing legally relevant explanations, with particular attention to their alignment with emerging regulatory frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). We analyze the strengths and limitations of different explanation strategies, evaluate their applicability to legal reasoning, and highlight how argumentation frameworks -- by capturing the defeasible, contestable, and value-sensitive nature of law -- offer a particularly robust foundation for explainable legal AI. Finally, we identify open challenges and research directions, including bias mitigation, empirical validation in judicial settings, and compliance with evolving ethical and legal standards, arguing that computational argumentation is best positioned to meet both technical and normative requirements of transparency in the law domain.

Modern time series forecasting increasingly relies on complex ensemble models generated by AutoML systems like AutoGluon, delivering superior accuracy but with significant costs to transparency and interpretability. This paper introduces a comprehensive, dual-approach framework that addresses both the explainability and forecastability challenges in complex time series ensembles. First, we develop a surrogate-based explanation methodology that bridges the accuracy-interpretability gap by training a LightGBM model to faithfully mimic AutoGluon's time series forecasts, enabling stable SHAP-based feature attributions. We rigorously validated this approach through feature injection experiments, demonstrating remarkably high faithfulness between extracted SHAP values and known ground truth effects. Second, we integrated spectral predictability analysis to quantify each series' inherent forecastability. By comparing each time series' spectral predictability to its pure noise benchmarks, we established an objective mechanism to gauge confidence in forecasts and their explanations. Our empirical evaluation on the M5 dataset found that higher spectral predictability strongly correlates not only with improved forecast accuracy but also with higher fidelity between the surrogate and the original forecasting model. These forecastability metrics serve as effective filtering mechanisms and confidence scores, enabling users to calibrate their trust in both the forecasts and their explanations. We further demonstrated that per-item normalization is essential for generating meaningful SHAP explanations across heterogeneous time series with varying scales. The resulting framework delivers interpretable, instance-level explanations for state-of-the-art ensemble forecasts, while equipping users with forecastability metrics that serve as reliability indicators for both predictions and their explanations.

To use artificial intelligence and machine learning models wisely we must understand how they interact with the world, including how they depend causally on data inputs. In this work we develop Causal Dependence Plots (CDPs) to visualize how a model's predicted outcome depends on changes in a given predictor