Explaining machine learning (ML) predictions has become crucial as ML models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare. While SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) is widely used for model interpretability, it fails to differentiate between causality and correlation, often misattributing feature importance when features are highly correlated. We propose Causal SHAP, a novel framework that integrates causal relationships into feature attribution while preserving many desirable properties of SHAP. By combining the Peter-Clark (PC) algorithm for causal discovery and the Intervention Calculus when the DAG is Absent (IDA) algorithm for causal strength quantification, our approach addresses the weakness of SHAP. Specifically, Causal SHAP reduces attribution scores for features that are merely correlated with the target, as validated through experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets. This study contributes to the field of Explainable AI (XAI) by providing a practical framework for causal-aware model explanations. Our approach is particularly valuable in domains such as healthcare, where understanding true causal relationships is critical for informed decision-making.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models by incorporating external knowledge, yet suffers from critical limitations in high-stakes domains -- namely, sensitivity to noisy or contradictory evidence and opaque, stochastic decision-making. We propose ArgRAG, an explainable, and contestable alternative that replaces black-box reasoning with structured inference using a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (QBAF). ArgRAG constructs a QBAF from retrieved documents and performs deterministic reasoning under gradual semantics. This allows faithfully explaining and contesting decisions. Evaluated on two fact verification benchmarks, PubHealth and RAGuard, ArgRAG achieves strong accuracy while significantly improving transparency.

Academic choice is crucial in U.S. undergraduate education, allowing students significant freedom in course selection. However, navigating the complex academic environment is challenging due to limited information, guidance, and an overwhelming number of choices, compounded by time restrictions and the high demand for popular courses. Although career counselors exist, their numbers are insufficient, and course recommendation systems, though personalized, often lack insight into student perceptions and explanations to assess course relevance. In this paper, a deep learning-based concept extraction model is developed to efficiently extract relevant concepts from course descriptions to improve the recommendation process. Using this model, the study examines the effects of skill-based explanations within a serendipitous recommendation framework, tested through the AskOski system at the University of California, Berkeley. The findings indicate that these explanations not only increase user interest, particularly in courses with high unexpectedness, but also bolster decision-making confidence. This underscores the importance of integrating skill-related data and explanations into educational recommendation systems.

The growing adoption of foundation models calls for a paradigm shift from Data Science to Model Science. Unlike data-centric approaches, Model Science places the trained model at the core of analysis, aiming to interact, verify, explain, and control its behavior across diverse operational contexts. This paper introduces a conceptual framework for a new discipline called Model Science, along with the proposal for its four key pillars: V erification, which requires strict, context-aware evaluation protocols; Explanation, which is understood as various approaches to explore of internal model operations; Control, which integrates alignment techniques to steer model behavior; and Interface, which develops interactive and visual explanation tools to improve human calibration and decision-making. The proposed framework aims to guide the development of credible, safe, and human-aligned AI systems.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods often struggle to generate clear, interpretable outputs for users without domain expertise. We introduce Feature-Guided Neighbor Selection (FGNS), a post hoc method that enhances interpretability by selecting class-representative examples using both local and global feature importance. In a user study (N = 98) evaluating Kannada script classifications, FGNS significantly improved non-experts' ability to identify model errors while maintaining appropriate agreement with correct predictions. Participants made faster and more accurate decisions compared to those given traditional k-NN explanations. Quantitative analysis shows that FGNS selects neighbors that better reflect class characteristics rather than merely minimizing feature-space distance, leading to more consistent selection and tighter clustering around class prototypes. These results support FGNS as a step toward more human-aligned model assessment, although further work is needed to address the gap between explanation quality and perceived trust.

Molecular property prediction is a crucial task that guides the design of new compounds, including drugs and materials. While explainable artificial intelligence methods aim to scrutinize model predictions by identifying influential molecular substructures, many existing approaches rely on masking strategies that remove either atoms or atom-level features to assess importance via fidelity metrics. These methods, however, often fail to adhere to the underlying molecular distribution and thus yield unintuitive explanations. In this work, we propose counterfactual masking, a novel framework that replaces masked substructures with chemically reasonable fragments sampled from generative models trained to complete molecular graphs. Rather than evaluating masked predictions against implausible zeroed-out baselines, we assess them relative to counterfactual molecules drawn from the data distribution. Our method offers two key benefits: (1) molecular realism underpinning robust and distribution-consistent explanations, and (2) meaningful counterfactuals that directly indicate how structural modifications may affect predicted properties. We demonstrate that counterfactual masking is well-suited for benchmarking model explainers and yields more actionable insights across multiple datasets and property prediction tasks.

Argument mining is a subfield of argumentation that aims to automatically extract argumentative structures and their relations from natural language texts. This paper investigates how a single large language model can be leveraged to perform one or several argument mining tasks. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we construct a multi-task dataset by surveying and converting 19 well-known argument mining datasets from the literature into a unified format. Second, we explore various training strategies using Meta AI's Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model: (1) fine-tuning on individual tasks, (2) fine-tuning jointly on multiple tasks, and (3) merging models fine-tuned separately on individual tasks. Our experiments show that task-specific fine-tuning significantly improves individual performance across all tasks. Moreover, multi-task fine-tuning maintains strong performance without degradation, suggesting effective transfer learning across related tasks. Finally, we demonstrate that model merging offers a viable compromise: it yields competitive performance while mitigating the computational costs associated with full multi-task fine-tuning.

Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and their applications in critical industries such as healthcare, fin-tech and cybersecurity have led to a surge in research in explainability in AI. Innovative research methods are being explored to extract meaningful insight from blackbox AI systems to make the decision-making technology transparent and interpretable. Explainability becomes all the more critical when AI is used in decision making in domains like fintech, healthcare and safety critical systems such as cybersecurity and autonomous vehicles. However, there is still ambiguity lingering on the reliable evaluations for the users and nature of transparency in the explanations provided for the decisions made by black-boxed AI. To solve the blackbox nature of Machine Learning based Intrusion Detection Systems, a framework is proposed in this paper to give an explanation for IDSs decision making. This framework uses Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) coupled with Explain Like I'm five (ELI5) and Decision Tree algorithms to provide local and global explanations and improve the interpretation of IDSs. The local explanations provide the justification for the decision made on a specific input. Whereas, the global explanations provides the list of significant features and their relationship with attack traffic. In addition, this framework brings transparency in the field of ML driven IDS that might be highly significant for wide scale adoption of eXplainable AI in cyber-critical systems. Our framework is able to achieve 85 percent accuracy in classifying attack behaviour on UNSW-NB15 dataset, while at the same time displaying the feature significance ranking of the top 10 features used in the classification.

Machine learning models increasingly influence decisions in high-stakes settings such as finance, law and hiring, driving the need for transparent, interpretable outcomes. However, while explainable approaches can help understand the decisions being made, they may inadvertently reveal the underlying proprietary algorithm: an undesirable outcome for many practitioners. Consequently, it is crucial to balance meaningful transparency with a form of recourse that clarifies why a decision was made and offers actionable steps following which a favorable outcome can be obtained. Counterfactual explanations offer a powerful mechanism to address this need by showing how specific input changes lead to a more favorable prediction. We propose Model-Agnostic Causally Constrained Counterfactual Generation (MC3G), a novel framework that tackles limitations in the existing counterfactual methods. First, MC3G is model-agnostic: it approximates any black-box model using an explainable rule-based surrogate model. Second, this surrogate is used to generate counterfactuals that produce a favourable outcome for the original underlying black box model. Third, MC3G refines cost computation by excluding the ``effort" associated with feature changes that occur automatically due to causal dependencies. By focusing only on user-initiated changes, MC3G provides a more realistic and fair representation of the effort needed to achieve a favourable outcome. We show that MC3G delivers more interpretable and actionable counterfactual recommendations compared to existing techniques all while having a lower cost. Our findings highlight MC3G's potential to enhance transparency, accountability, and practical utility in decision-making processes that incorporate machine-learning approaches.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide a formal setting to analyze many forms of reasoning with conflicting information. While the expressiveness of general infinite AFs make them a tempting tool for modeling many kinds of reasoning scenarios, the computational intractability of solving infinite AFs limit their use, even in many theoretical applications. We investigate the complexity of computational problems related to infinite but finitary argumentations frameworks, that is, infinite AFs where each argument is attacked by only finitely many others. Our results reveal a surprising scenario. On one hand, we see that the assumption of being finitary does not automatically guarantee a drop in complexity. However, for the admissibility-based semantics, we find a remarkable combinatorial constraint which entails a dramatic decrease in complexity. We conclude that for many forms of reasoning, the finitary infinite AFs provide a natural setting for reasoning which balances well the competing goals of being expressive enough to be applied to many reasoning settings while being computationally tractable enough for the analysis within the framework to be useful.