As machine learning systems increasingly inform critical decisions, the need for human-understandable explanations grows. Current evaluations of Explainable AI (XAI) often prioritize technical fidelity over cognitive accessibility which critically affects users, in particular those with visual impairments. We propose CUE, a model for Cognitive Understanding of Explanations, linking explanation properties to cognitive sub-processes: legibility (perception), readability (comprehension), and interpretability (interpretation). In a study (N=455) testing heatmaps with varying col-ormaps (BWR, Cividis, Coolwarm), we found comparable task performance but lower confidence/effort for visually impaired users. Unlike expected, these gaps were not mitigated and sometimes worsened by accessibility-focused color maps like Cividis. These results challenge assumptions about perceptual optimization and support the need for adaptive XAI interfaces. They also validate CUE by demonstrating that altering explanation legibility affects understandability. We contribute: (1) a formalized cognitive model for explanation understanding, (2) an integrated definition of human-centered explanation properties, and (3) empirical evidence motivating accessible, user-tailored XAI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at linear reasoning tasks but remain underexplored on non-linear structures such as those found in natural debates, which are best expressed as argument graphs. We evaluate whether LLMs can approximate structured reasoning from Computational Argumentation Theory (CAT). Specifically, we use Quantitative Argumentation Debate (QuAD) semantics, which assigns acceptability scores to arguments based on their attack and support relations. Given only dialogue-formatted debates from two NoDE datasets, models are prompted to rank arguments without access to the underlying graph. We test several LLMs under advanced instruction strategies, including Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning. While models show moderate alignment with QuAD rankings, performance degrades with longer inputs or disrupted discourse flow. Advanced prompting helps mitigate these effects by reducing biases related to argument length and position. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of LLMs in modeling formal argumentation semantics and motivate future work on graph-aware reasoning.

We present an explainable AI-enhanced supervisory control framework for multi-agent robotics that combines (i) a timed-automata supervisor for safe, auditable mode switching, (ii) robust continuous control (Lyapunov-based controller for large-angle maneuver; sliding-mode controller (SMC) with boundary layers for precision and disturbance rejection), and (iii) an explainable predictor that maps mission context to gains and expected performance (energy, error). Monte Carlo-driven optimization provides the training data, enabling transparent real-time trade-offs. We validated the approach in two contrasting domains, spacecraft formation flying and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). Despite different environments (gravity/actuator bias vs. hydrodynamic drag/currents), both share uncertain six degrees of freedom (6-DOF) rigid-body dynamics, relative motion, and tight tracking needs, making them representative of general robotic systems. In the space mission, the supervisory logic selects parameters that meet mission criteria. In AUV leader-follower tests, the same SMC structure maintains a fixed offset under stochastic currents with bounded steady error. In spacecraft validation, the SMC controller achieved submillimeter alignment with 21.7% lower tracking error and 81.4% lower energy consumption compared to Proportional-Derivative PD controller baselines. At the same time, in AUV tests, SMC maintained bounded errors under stochastic currents. These results highlight both the portability and the interpretability of the approach for safety-critical, resource-constrained multi-agent robotics.

We present functions that quantify the contribution of a set of arguments in quantitative bipolar argumentation graphs to (the final strength of) an argument of interest, a so-called topic. Our set contribution functions are generalizations of existing functions that quantify the contribution of a single contributing argument to a topic. Accordingly, we generalize existing contribution function principles for set contribution functions and provide a corresponding principle-based analysis. We introduce new principles specific to set-based functions that focus on properties pertaining to the interaction of arguments within a set. Finally, we sketch how the principles play out across different set contribution functions given a recommendation system application scenario.

This paper introduces a Blockchain-Integrated Explainable AI Framework (BXHF) for healthcare systems to tackle two essential challenges confronting health information networks: safe data exchange and comprehensible AI-driven clinical decision-making. Our architecture incorporates blockchain, ensuring patient records are immutable, auditable, and tamper-proof, alongside Explainable AI (XAI) methodologies that yield transparent and clinically relevant model predictions. By incorporating security assurances and interpretability requirements into a unified optimization pipeline, BXHF ensures both data-level trust (by verified and encrypted record sharing) and decision-level trust (with auditable and clinically aligned explanations). Its hybrid edge-cloud architecture allows for federated computation across different institutions, enabling collaborative analytics while protecting patient privacy. We demonstrate the framework's applicability through use cases such as cross-border clinical research networks, uncommon illness detection and high-risk intervention decision support. By ensuring transparency, auditability, and regulatory compliance, BXHF improves the credibility, uptake, and effectiveness of AI in healthcare, laying the groundwork for safer and more reliable clinical decision-making.

Capturing professionals' decision-making in creative workflows is essential for reflection, collaboration, and knowledge sharing, yet existing methods often leave rationales incomplete and implicit decisions hidden. To address this, we present CLEAR framework that structures reasoning into cognitive decision steps-linked units of actions, artifacts, and self-explanations that make decisions traceable. Building on this framework, we introduce ClearFairy, a think-aloud AI assistant for UI design that detects weak explanations, asks lightweight clarifying questions, and infers missing rationales to ease the knowledge-sharing burden. In a study with twelve creative professionals, 85% of ClearFairy's inferred rationales were accepted, increasing strong explanations from 14% to over 83% of decision steps without adding cognitive demand. The captured steps also enhanced generative AI agents in Figma, yielding next-action predictions better aligned with professionals and producing more coherent design outcomes. For future research on human knowledge-grounded creative AI agents, we release a dataset of captured 417 decision steps.

Most explainable AI (XAI) frameworks are limited in their expressiveness, summarizing complex feature effects as single scalar values ϕ_i. This approach answers "what" features are important but fails to reveal "how" they interact. Furthermore, methods that attempt to capture interactions, like those based on Shapley values, often face an exponential computational cost. We present STRIDE, a scalable framework that addresses both limitations by reframing explanation as a subset-enumeration-free, orthogonal "functional decomposition" in a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS). In the tabular setups we study, STRIDE analytically computes functional components f_S(x_S) via a recursive kernel-centering procedure. The approach is model-agnostic and theoretically grounded with results on orthogonality and L^2 convergence. In tabular benchmarks (10 datasets, median over 10 seeds), STRIDE attains a 3.0 times median speedup over TreeSHAP and a mean R^2=0.93 for reconstruction. We also introduce "component surgery", a diagnostic that isolates a learned interaction and quantifies its contribution; on California Housing, removing a single interaction reduces test R^2 from 0.019 to 0.027.

This study investigates how context and emotional tone metadata influence large language model (LLM) reasoning and performance in fallacy classification tasks, particularly within political debate settings. Using data from U.S. presidential debates, we classify six fallacy types through various prompting strategies applied to the Qwen-3 (8B) model. We introduce two theoretically grounded Chain-of-Thought frameworks: Pragma-Dialectics and the Periodic Table of Arguments, and evaluate their effectiveness against a baseline prompt under three input settings: text-only, text with context, and text with both context and audio-based emotional tone metadata. Results suggest that while theoretical prompting can improve interpretability and, in some cases, accuracy, the addition of context and especially emotional tone metadata often leads to lowered performance. Emotional tone metadata biases the model toward labeling statements as \textit{Appeal to Emotion}, worsening logical reasoning. Overall, basic prompts often outperformed enhanced ones, suggesting that attention dilution from added inputs may worsen rather than improve fallacy classification in LLMs.

Integrating argumentation mechanisms into negotiation dialogue systems improves conflict resolution through exchanges of arguments and critiques. Moreover, incorporating personality attributes enhances adaptability by aligning interactions with individuals' preferences and styles. To advance these capabilities in negotiation dialogue systems, we propose a novel Personality-driven Argumentation-based Negotiation Dialogue Generation (PAN-DG) task. To support this task, we introduce PACT, a dataset of Personality-driven Argumentation-based negotiation Conversations for Tourism sector. This dataset, generated using Large Language Models (LLMs), features three distinct personality profiles, viz. Argumentation Profile, Preference Profile, and Buying Style Profile to simulate a variety of negotiation scenarios involving diverse personalities. Thorough automatic and manual evaluations indicate that the dataset comprises high-quality dialogues. Further, we conduct comparative experiments between pre-trained and fine-tuned LLMs for the PAN-DG task. Multi-dimensional evaluation demonstrates that the fine-tuned LLMs effectively generate personality-driven rational responses during negotiations. This underscores the effectiveness of PACT in enhancing personalization and reasoning capabilities in negotiation dialogue systems, thereby establishing a foundation for future research in this domain.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by atypical brain maturation. However, the adaptation of transfer learning paradigms in machine learning for ASD research remains notably limited. In this study, we propose a computer-aided diagnostic framework with two modules. This chapter presents a two-module framework combining deep learning and explainable AI for ASD diagnosis. The first module leverages a deep learning model fine-tuned through cross-domain transfer learning for ASD classification. The second module focuses on interpreting the model decisions and identifying critical brain regions. To achieve this, we employed three explainable AI (XAI) techniques: saliency mapping, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis. This framework demonstrates that cross-domain transfer learning can effectively address data scarcity in ASD research. In addition, by applying three established explainability techniques, the approach reveals how the model makes diagnostic decisions and identifies brain regions most associated with ASD. These findings were compared against established neurobiological evidence, highlighting strong alignment and reinforcing the clinical relevance of the proposed approach.