Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has aided machine learning (ML) researchers with the power of scrutinizing the decisions of the black-box models. XAI methods enable looking deep inside the models' behavior, eventually generating explanations along with a perceived trust and transparency. However, depending on any specific XAI method, the level of trust can vary. It is evident that XAI methods can themselves be a victim of post-adversarial attacks that manipulate the expected outcome from the explanation module. Among such attack tactics, fairwashing explanation (FE), manipulation explanation (ME), and backdoor-enabled manipulation attacks (BD) are the notable ones. In this paper, we try to understand these adversarial attack techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) on explanation alteration and thus the effect on the model's decisions. We have explored a total of six different individual attack procedures on post-hoc explanation methods such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanation), and IG (Integrated Gradients), and investigated those adversarial attacks in cybersecurity applications scenarios such as phishing, malware, intrusion, and fraudulent website detection. Our experimental study reveals the actual effectiveness of these attacks, thus providing an urgency for immediate attention to enhance the resiliency of XAI methods and their applications.

Humans are black boxes -- we cannot observe their neural processes, yet society functions by evaluating verifiable arguments. AI explainability should follow this principle: stakeholders need verifiable reasoning chains, not mechanistic transparency. We propose using structured argumentation to provide a level of explanation and verification neither interpretability nor LLM-generated explanation is able to offer. Our pipeline achieves state-of-the-art 94.44 macro F1 on the AAEC published train/test split (5.7 points above prior work) and $0.81$ macro F1, $\sim$0.07 above previous published results with comparable data setups, for Argumentative MicroTexts relation classification, converting LLM text into argument graphs and enabling verification at each inferential step. We demonstrate this idea on multi-agent risk assessment using the Structured What-If Technique, where specialized agents collaborate transparently to carry out risk assessment otherwise achieved by humans alone. Using Bipolar Assumption-Based Argumentation, we capture support/attack relationships, thereby enabling automatic hallucination detection via fact nodes attacking arguments. We also provide a verification mechanism that enables iterative refinement through test-time feedback without retraining. For easy deployment, we provide a Docker container for the fine-tuned AMT model, and the rest of the code with the Bipolar ABA Python package on GitHub.

Abstract--Explainability is increasingly seen as an essential feature of rule-based smart environments. While counterfactual explanations, which describe what could have been done differently to achieve a desired outcome, are a powerful tool in eXplainable AI (XAI), no established methods exist for generating them in these rule-based domains. In this paper, we present the first formalization and implementation of counterfactual explanations tailored to this domain. It is implemented as a plugin that extends an existing explanation engine for smart environments. We conducted a user study (N=17) to evaluate our generated counterfactuals against traditional causal explanations. The results show that user preference is highly contextual: causal explanations are favored for their linguistic simplicity and in time-pressured situations, while counterfactuals are preferred for their actionable content, particularly when a user wants to resolve a problem. Our work contributes a practical framework for a new type of explanation in smart environments and provides empirical evidence to guide the choice of when each explanation type is most effective. Smart environments, such as smart homes, offices, and buildings, integrate sensor-enabled devices to support users in decision-making, monitoring, and managing abnormal situations [1], [2]. The rapid adoption of these environments is fueled by advances in the Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), decreasing device costs, and improved system integration [3]-[5]. Rule-based systems are a prevalent approach for implementing automation in smart environments, by executing predefined rules when certain conditions are met [6], [7].

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied in almost every field. At the same time, the currently dominant deep learning methods are fundamentally black-box systems that lack explanations for their inferences, significantly limiting their trustworthiness and adoption. Explainable AI (XAI) methods aim to overcome this challenge by providing explanations of the models' decision process. Such methods are often proposed and developed by engineers and scientists with a predominantly technical background and incorporate their assumptions about the existence, validity, and explanatory utility of different conceivable explanatory mechanisms. However, the basic concept of an explanation -- what it is, whether we can know it, whether it is absolute or relative -- is far from trivial and has been the subject of deep philosophical debate for millennia. As we point out here, the assumptions incorporated into different XAI methods are not harmless and have important consequences for the validity and interpretation of AI explanations in different domains. We investigate ontological and epistemological assumptions in explainability methods when they are applied to AI systems, meaning the assumptions we make about the existence of explanations and our ability to gain knowledge about those explanations. Our analysis shows how seemingly small technical changes to an XAI method may correspond to important differences in the underlying assumptions about explanations. We furthermore highlight the risks of ignoring the underlying onto-epistemological paradigm when choosing an XAI method for a given application, and we discuss how to select and adapt appropriate XAI methods for different domains of application.

The role that highly curated knowledge, provided by domain experts, could play in creating effective tutoring systems is often overlooked within the AI for education community. In this paper, we highlight this topic by discussing two ways such highly curated expert knowledge could help in creating novel educational systems. First, we will look at how one could use explainable AI (XAI) techniques to automatically create lessons. Most existing XAI methods are primarily aimed at debugging AI systems. However, we will discuss how one could use expert specified rules about solving specific problems along with novel XAI techniques to automatically generate lessons that could be provided to learners. Secondly, we will see how an expert specified curriculum for learning a target concept can help develop adaptive tutoring systems, that can not only provide a better learning experience, but could also allow us to use more efficient algorithms to create these systems. Finally, we will highlight the importance of such methods using a case study of creating a tutoring system for pollinator identification, where such knowledge could easily be elicited from experts.

The proliferation of transformer-based language models has revolutionized NLP domain while simultaneously introduced significant challenges regarding model transparency and trustworthiness. The complexity of achieving explainable systems in this domain is evidenced by the extensive array of explanation methods and evaluation metrics developed by researchers. To address the challenge of selecting optimal explainability approaches, we present \textbf{\texttt{o-mega}}, a hyperparameter optimization tool designed to automatically identify the most effective explainable AI methods and their configurations within the semantic matching domain. We evaluate o-mega on a post-claim matching pipeline using a curated dataset of social media posts paired with refuting claims. Our tool systematically explores different explainable methods and their hyperparameters, demonstrating improved transparency in automated fact-checking systems. As a result, such automated optimization of explanation methods can significantly enhance the interpretability of claim-matching models in critical applications such as misinformation detection, contributing to more trustworthy and transparent AI systems.

We introduce Slot Attention Argumentation for Case-Based Reasoning (SAA-CBR), a novel neuro-symbolic pipeline for image classification that integrates object-centric learning via a neural Slot Attention (SA) component with symbolic reasoning conducted by Abstract Argumentation for Case-Based Reasoning (AA-CBR). We explore novel integrations of AA-CBR with the neural component, including feature combination strategies, casebase reduction via representative samples, novel count-based partial orders, a One-Vs-Rest strategy for extending AA-CBR to multi-class classification, and an application of Supported AA-CBR, a bipolar variant of AA-CBR. We demonstrate that SAA-CBR is an effective classifier on the CLEVR-Hans datasets, showing competitive performance against baseline models.

For the needs of this study, we extend an existing framework for multigranular explanation of video summarization by integrating a SOT A Large Multimodal Model (LLaV A-OneVision) and prompting it to produce natural language descriptions of the obtained visual explanations. Following, we focus on one of the most desired characteristics for explainable AI, the plausibility of the obtained explanations that relates with their alignment with the humans' reasoning and expectations. Using the extended framework, we propose an approach for evaluating the plausibility of visual explanations by quantifying the semantic overlap between their textual descriptions and the textual descriptions of the corresponding video summaries, with the help of two methods for creating sentence embeddings (SBERT, SimCSE). Based on the extended framework and the proposed plausibility evaluation approach, we conduct an experimental study using a SOT A method (CA-SUM) and two datasets (SumMe, TVSum) for video summarization, to examine whether the more faithful explanations are also the more plausible ones, and identify the most appropriate approach for generating plausible textual explanations for video summarization.

We address the issue of defining a semantics for deontic argumentation that supports weak permission. Some recent results show that grounded semantics do not support weak permission when there is a conflict between two obligations. We provide a definition of Deontic Argumentation Theory that accounts for weak permission, and we recall the result about grounded semantics. Then, we propose a new semantics that supports weak permission.

AI-based recommender systems increasingly influence recruitment decisions. Thus, transparency and responsible adoption in Human Resource Management (HRM) are critical. This study examines how HR managers' AI literacy influences their subjective perception and objective understanding of explainable AI (XAI) elements in recruiting recommender dashboards. In an online experiment, 410 German-based HR managers compared baseline dashboards to versions enriched with three XAI styles: important features, counterfactuals, and model criteria. Our results show that the dashboards used in practice do not explain AI results and even keep AI elements opaque. However, while adding XAI features improves subjective perceptions of helpfulness and trust among users with moderate or high AI literacy, it does not increase their objective understanding. It may even reduce accurate understanding, especially with complex explanations. Only overlays of important features significantly aided the interpretations of high-literacy users. Our findings highlight that the benefits of XAI in recruitment depend on users' AI literacy, emphasizing the need for tailored explanation strategies and targeted literacy training in HRM to ensure fair, transparent, and effective adoption of AI.