Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used for decision-making across domains, raising debates over the information and explanations they should provide. Most research on Explainable AI (XAI) has focused on feature-based explanations, with less attention on alternative styles. Personality traits like the Need for Cognition (NFC) can also lead to different decision-making outcomes among low and high NFC individuals. We investigated how presenting AI information (prediction, confidence, and accuracy) and different explanation styles (example-based, feature-based, rule-based, and counterfactual) affect accuracy, reliance on AI, and cognitive load in a loan application scenario. We also examined low and high NFC individuals' differences in prioritizing XAI interface elements (loan attributes, AI information, and explanations), accuracy, and cognitive load. Our findings show that high AI confidence significantly increases reliance on AI while reducing cognitive load. Feature-based explanations did not enhance accuracy compared to other conditions. Although counterfactual explanations were less understandable, they enhanced overall accuracy, increasing reliance on AI and reducing cognitive load when AI predictions were correct. Both low and high NFC individuals prioritized explanations after loan attributes, leaving AI information as the least important. However, we found no significant differences between low and high NFC groups in accuracy or cognitive load, raising questions about the role of personality traits in AI-assisted decision-making. These findings highlight the need for user-centric personalization in XAI interfaces, incorporating diverse explanation styles and exploring multiple personality traits and other user characteristics to optimize human-AI collaboration.

Swarming systems, such as for example multi-drone networks, excel at cooperative tasks like monitoring, surveillance, or disaster assistance in critical environments, where autonomous agents make decentralized decisions in order to fulfill team-level objectives in a robust and efficient manner. Unfortunately, team-level coordinated strategies in the wild are vulnerable to data poisoning attacks, resulting in either inaccurate coordination or adversarial behavior among the agents. To address this challenge, we contribute a framework that investigates the effects of such data poisoning attacks, using explainable AI methods. We model the interaction among agents using evolutionary intelligence, where an optimal coalition strategically emerges to perform coordinated tasks. Then, through a rigorous evaluation, the swarm model is systematically poisoned using data manipulation attacks. We showcase the applicability of explainable AI methods to quantify the effects of poisoning on the team strategy and extract footprint characterizations that enable diagnosing. Our findings indicate that when the model is poisoned above 10%, non-optimal strategies resulting in inefficient cooperation can be identified.

In this paper, we present a general framework for ranking sets of arguments in abstract argumentation based on their plausibility of acceptance. We present a generalisation of Dung's extension semantics as extension-ranking semantics, which induce a preorder over the power set of all arguments, allow ing us to state that one set is "closer" to being acceptable than another . To evaluate the extension-ranking semantics, we introduce a number of p rinciples that a well-behaved extension-ranking semantics should satisfy. W e consider several simple base relations, each of which models a single central a spect of argumentative reasoning. The combination of these base relations provides us with a family of extension-ranking semantics. We also adapt a numb er of approaches from the literature for ranking extensions to be us able in the context of extension-ranking semantics, and evaluate their beha viour. Keywords: Abstract Argumentation, Ranking Sets of Objects, Extension-ranking semantics 1. Introduction Formal argumentation [7] is concerned with models of rational decis ion-making based on representations of arguments and their relations.

Evaluating synthetic tabular data is challenging, since they can differ from the real data in so many ways. There exist numerous metrics of synthetic data quality, ranging from statistical distances to predictive performance, often providing conflicting results. Moreover, they fail to explain or pinpoint the specific weaknesses in the synthetic data. To address this, we apply explainable AI (XAI) techniques to a binary detection classifier trained to distinguish real from synthetic data. While the classifier identifies distributional differences, XAI concepts such as feature importance and feature effects, analyzed through methods like permutation feature importance, partial dependence plots, Shapley values and counterfactual explanations, reveal why synthetic data are distinguishable, highlighting inconsistencies, unrealistic dependencies, or missing patterns. This interpretability increases transparency in synthetic data evaluation and provides deeper insights beyond conventional metrics, helping diagnose and improve synthetic data quality. We apply our approach to two tabular datasets and generative models, showing that it uncovers issues overlooked by standard evaluation techniques.

The integration of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into cellular networks presents significant mobility management challenges, primarily due to frequent handovers caused by probabilistic line-of-sight conditions with multiple ground base stations (BSs). To tackle these challenges, reinforcement learning (RL)-based methods, particularly deep Q-networks (DQN), have been employed to optimize handover decisions dynamically. However, a major drawback of these learning-based approaches is their black-box nature, which limits interpretability in the decision-making process. This paper introduces an explainable AI (XAI) framework that incorporates Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) to provide deeper insights into how various state parameters influence handover decisions in a DQN-based mobility management system. By quantifying the impact of key features such as reference signal received power (RSRP), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), buffer status, and UAV position, our approach enhances the interpretability and reliability of RL-based handover solutions. To validate and compare our framework, we utilize real-world network performance data collected from UAV flight trials. Simulation results show that our method provides intuitive explanations for policy decisions, effectively bridging the gap between AI-driven models and human decision-makers.

Unresolved questions about how autonomous vehicles (AVs) should meet the informational needs of riders hinder real-world adoption. Complicating our ability to satisfy rider needs is that different people, goals, and driving contexts have different criteria for what constitutes interaction success. Unfortunately, most human-AV research and design today treats all people and situations uniformly. It is crucial to understand how an AV should communicate to meet rider needs, and how communications should change when the human-AV complex system changes. I argue that understanding the relationships between different aspects of the human-AV system can help us build improved and adaptable AV communications. I support this argument using three empirical studies. First, I identify optimal communication strategies that enhance driving performance, confidence, and trust for learning in extreme driving environments. Findings highlight the need for task-sensitive, modality-appropriate communications tuned to learner cognitive limits and goals. Next, I highlight the consequences of deploying faulty communication systems and demonstrate the need for context-sensitive communications. Third, I use machine learning (ML) to illuminate personal factors predicting trust in AVs, emphasizing the importance of tailoring designs to individual traits and concerns. Together, this dissertation supports the necessity of transparent, adaptable, and personalized AV systems that cater to individual needs, goals, and contextual demands. By considering the complex system within which human-AV interactions occur, we can deliver valuable insights for designers, researchers, and policymakers. This dissertation also provides a concrete domain to study theories of human-machine joint action and situational awareness, and can be used to guide future human-AI interaction research. [shortened for arxiv]

Background and aim: Considering the scope of the application of artificial intelligence beyond the field of computer science, one of the concerns of researchers is to provide quality explanations about the functioning of algorithms based on artificial intelligence and the data extracted from it. The purpose of the present study is to validate the Italian version of system causability scale (I-SCS) to measure the quality of explanations provided in a xAI. Method: For this purpose, the English version, initially provided in 2020 in coordination with the main developer, was utilized. The forward-backward translation method was applied to ensure accuracy. Finally, these nine steps were completed by calculating the content validity index/ratio and conducting cognitive interviews with representative end users. Results: The original version of the questionnaire consisted of 10 questions. However, based on the obtained indexes (CVR below 0.49), one question (Question 8) was entirely removed. After completing the aforementioned steps, the Italian version contained 9 questions. The representative sample of Italian end users fully comprehended the meaning and content of the questions in the Italian version. Conclusion: The Italian version obtained in this study can be used in future research studies as well as in the field by xAI developers. This tool can be used to measure the quality of explanations provided for an xAI system in Italian culture.

Counterfactual explanations are a widely used approach in Explainable AI, offering actionable insights into decision-making by illustrating how small changes to input data can lead to different outcomes. Despite their importance, evaluating the quality of counterfactual explanations remains an open problem. Traditional quantitative metrics, such as sparsity or proximity, fail to fully account for human preferences in explanations, while user studies are insightful but not scalable. Moreover, relying only on a single overall satisfaction rating does not lead to a nuanced understanding of why certain explanations are effective or not. To address this, we analyze a dataset of counterfactual explanations that were evaluated by 206 human participants, who rated not only overall satisfaction but also seven explanatory criteria: feasibility, coherence, complexity, understandability, completeness, fairness, and trust. Modeling overall satisfaction as a function of these criteria, we find that feasibility (the actionability of suggested changes) and trust (the belief that the changes would lead to the desired outcome) consistently stand out as the strongest predictors of user satisfaction, though completeness also emerges as a meaningful contributor. Crucially, even excluding feasibility and trust, other metrics explain 58% of the variance, highlighting the importance of additional explanatory qualities. Complexity appears independent, suggesting more detailed explanations do not necessarily reduce satisfaction. Strong metric correlations imply a latent structure in how users judge quality, and demographic background significantly shapes ranking patterns. These insights inform the design of counterfactual algorithms that adapt explanatory qualities to user expertise and domain context.

The desirable properties of explanations in information systems have fueled the demands for transparency in artificial intelligence (AI) outputs. To address these demands, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has put forth methods that can support human decision-making by explaining AI outputs. However, current empirical works present inconsistent findings on whether such explanations help to improve users' task performance in decision support systems (DSS). In this paper, we conduct a meta-analysis to explore how XAI affects human performance in classification tasks. Our results show an improvement in task performance through XAI-based decision support, though explanations themselves are not the decisive driver for this improvement. The analysis reveals that the studies' risk of bias moderates the effect of explanations in AI, while the explanation type appears to play only a negligible role. Our findings contribute to the human computer interaction field by enhancing the understanding of human-XAI collaboration in DSS.

As robots and digital assistants are deployed in the real world, these agents must be able to communicate their decision-making criteria to build trust, improve human-robot teaming, and enable collaboration. While the field of explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) has made great strides to enable such communication, these advances often assume that one xAI approach is ideally suited to each problem (e.g., decision trees to explain how to triage patients in an emergency or feature-importance maps to explain radiology reports). This fails to recognize that users have diverse experiences or preferences for interaction modalities. In this work, we present two user-studies set in a simulated autonomous vehicle (AV) domain. We investigate (1) population-level preferences for xAI and (2) personalization strategies for providing robot explanations. We find significant differences between xAI modes (language explanations, feature-importance maps, and decision trees) in both preference (p < 0.01) and performance (p < 0.05). We also observe that a participant's preferences do not always align with their performance, motivating our development of an adaptive personalization strategy to balance the two. We show that this strategy yields significant performance gains (p < 0.05), and we conclude with a discussion of our findings and implications for xAI in human-robot interactions.