In today's data-driven era, computational systems generate vast amounts of data that drive the digital transformation of industries, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a key role. Currently, the demand for eXplainable AI (XAI) has increased to enhance the interpretability, transparency, and trustworthiness of AI models. However, evaluating XAI methods remains challenging: existing evaluation frameworks typically focus on quantitative properties such as fidelity, consistency, and stability without taking into account qualitative characteristics such as satisfaction and interpretability. In addition, practitioners face a lack of guidance in selecting appropriate datasets, AI models, and XAI methods -a major hurdle in human-AI collaboration. To address these gaps, we propose a framework that integrates quantitative benchmarking with qualitative user assessments through virtual personas based on the "Anthology" of backstories of the Large Language Model (LLM). Our framework also incorporates a content-based recommender system that leverages dataset-specific characteristics to match new input data with a repository of benchmarked datasets. This yields an estimated XAI score and provides tailored recommendations for both the optimal AI model and the XAI method for a given scenario.

The injection molding process is a traditional technique for making products in various industries such as electronics and automobiles via solidifying liquid resin into certain molds. Although the process is not related to creating the main part of engines or semiconductors, this manufacturing methodology sets the final form of the products. Re-cently, research has continued to reduce the defect rate of the injection molding process. This study proposes an optimal injection molding process control system to reduce the defect rate of injection molding products with XAI (eXplainable Artificial Intelligence) ap-proaches. Boosting algorithms (XGBoost and LightGBM) are used as tree-based classifiers for predicting whether each product is normal or defective. The main features to control the process for improving the product are extracted by SHapley Additive exPlanations, while the individual conditional expectation analyzes the optimal control range of these extracted features. To validate the methodology presented in this work, the actual injection molding AI manufacturing dataset provided by KAMP (Korea AI Manufacturing Platform) is employed for the case study. The results reveal that the defect rate decreases from 1.00% (Original defect rate) to 0.21% with XGBoost and 0.13% with LightGBM, respectively.

The increasing reliance on AI-based security tools in Security Operations Centers (SOCs) has transformed threat detection and response, yet analysts frequently struggle with alert overload, false positives, and lack of contextual relevance. The inability to effectively analyze AI-generated security alerts lead to inefficiencies in incident response and reduces trust in automated decision-making. In this paper, we show results and analysis of our investigation of how SOC analysts navigate AI-based alerts, their challenges with current security tools, and how explainability (XAI) integrated into their security workflows has the potential to become an effective decision support. In this vein, we conducted an industry survey. Using the survey responses, we analyze how security analysts' process, retrieve, and prioritize alerts. Our findings indicate that most analysts have not yet adopted XAI-integrated tools, but they express high interest in attack attribution, confidence scores, and feature contribution explanations to improve interpretability, and triage efficiency. Based on our findings, we also propose practical design recommendations for XAI-enhanced security alert systems, enabling AI-based cybersecurity solutions to be more transparent, interpretable, and actionable.

Counterfactual explanations are one of the prominent eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques, and suggest changes to input data that could alter predictions, leading to more favourable outcomes. Existing counterfactual methods do not readily apply to temporal domains, such as that of process mining, where data take the form of traces of activities that must obey to temporal background knowledge expressing which dynamics are possible and which not. Specifically, counterfactuals generated off-the-shelf may violate the background knowledge, leading to inconsistent explanations. This work tackles this challenge by introducing a novel approach for generating temporally constrained counterfactuals, guaranteed to comply by design with background knowledge expressed in Linear Temporal Logic on process traces (LTLp). We do so by infusing automata-theoretic techniques for LTLp inside a genetic algorithm for counterfactual generation. The empirical evaluation shows that the generated counterfactuals are temporally meaningful and more interpretable for applications involving temporal dependencies.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed human-computer interactions, making it essential to establish robust design standards to ensure effective, ethical, and human-centered AI (HCAI) solutions. Standards serve as the foundation for the adoption of new technologies, and human-AI interaction (HAII) standards are critical to supporting the industrialization of AI technology by following an HCAI approach. These design standards aim to provide clear principles, requirements, and guidelines for designing, developing, deploying, and using AI systems, enhancing the user experience and performance of AI systems. Despite their importance, the creation and adoption of HCAI-based interaction design standards face challenges, including the absence of universal frameworks, the inherent complexity of HAII, and the ethical dilemmas that arise in such systems. This chapter provides a comparative analysis of HAII versus traditional human-computer interaction (HCI) and outlines guiding principles for HCAI-based design. It explores international, regional, national, and industry standards related to HAII design from an HCAI perspective and reviews design guidelines released by leading companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Additionally, the chapter highlights tools available for implementing HAII standards and presents case studies of human-centered interaction design for AI systems in diverse fields, including healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and customer service. It further examines key challenges in developing HAII standards and suggests future directions for the field. Emphasizing the importance of ongoing collaboration between AI designers, developers, and experts in human factors and HCI, this chapter stresses the need to advance HCAI-based interaction design standards to ensure human-centered AI solutions across various domains.

We introduce Riemannian Integrated Gradients (RIG); an extension of Integrated Gradients (IG) to Riemannian manif olds. We demonstrate that RIG restricts to IG when the Riemannian man ifold is Euclidean space. We show that feature attribution can be p hrased as an eigenvalue problem where attributions correspond to eig envalues of a symmetric endomorphism.

Explainable AI for Clinical Outcome Prediction: A Survey of Clinician Perceptions and Preferences Jun Hou, MS 1, Lucy Lu Wang, PhD 2 1 Virginia T ech, Blacksburg, V A; 2 University of Washington, Seattle, W A Abstract Explainable AI (XAI) techniques are necessary to help clinicians make sense of AI predictions and integrate predictions into their decision-making workflow. In this work, we conduct a survey study to understand clinician preference among different XAI techniques when they are used to interpret model predictions over text-based EHR data. We implement four XAI techniques (LIME, Attention-based span highlights, exemplar patient retrieval, and free-text rationales generated by LLMs) on an outcome prediction model that uses ICU admission notes to predict a patient's likelihood of experiencing in-hospital mortality. Using these XAI implementations, we design and conduct a survey study of 32 practicing clinicians, collecting their feedback and preferences on the four techniques. We synthesize our findings into a set of recommendations describing when each of the XAI techniques may be more appropriate, their potential limitations, as well as recommendations for improvement. I NTRODUCTION Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) powered by machine learning and AI have the potential to assist in medical decisions and improve patient outcomes. However, to meaningfully support clinicians, AI-powered CDSS must be trustworthy and interpretable, allowing clinicians to assess the utility and applicability of model predictions. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed to improve model interpretability, especially for neural network and other blackbox models. 1 While XAI techniques have been applied to CDSS, 2 a comprehensive understanding of clinician preferences and perceptions regarding XAI applications in these systems remains largely unexplored. Prior work on clinical XAI tends to focus on explanatory accuracy, in terms of which models are applicable, 3 how to integrate XAI methods for different healthcare tasks, 4 or which datasets are available to train on.

Interpretability analysis methods for artificial intelligence models, such as LIME and SHAP, are widely used, though they primarily serve as post-model for analyzing model outputs. While it is commonly believed that the transparency and interpretability of AI models diminish as their complexity increases, currently there is no standardized method for assessing the inherent interpretability of the models themselves. This paper uses bond market default prediction as a case study, applying commonly used machine learning algorithms within AI models. First, the classification performance of these algorithms in default prediction is evaluated. Then, leveraging LIME and SHAP to assess the contribution of sample features to prediction outcomes, the paper proposes a novel method for evaluating the interpretability of the models themselves. The results of this analysis are consistent with the intuitive understanding and logical expectations regarding the interpretability of these models.

Faithful explanations are essential for machine learning models in high-stakes applications. Inherently interpretable models are well-suited for these applications because they naturally provide faithful explanations by revealing their decision logic. However, model designers often need to keep these models proprietary to maintain their value. This creates a tension: we need models that are interpretable--allowing human decision-makers to understand and justify predictions, but not transparent, so that the model's decision boundary is not easily replicated by attackers. Shielding the model's decision boundary is particularly challenging alongside the requirement of completely faithful explanations, since such explanations reveal the true logic of the model for an entire subspace around each query point. This work provides an approach, FaithfulDefense, that creates model explanations for logical models that are completely faithful, yet reveal as little as possible about the decision boundary. FaithfulDefense is based on a maximum set cover formulation, and we provide multiple formulations for it, taking advantage of submodularity.

Counterfactual explanations provide actionable insights to achieve desired outcomes by suggesting minimal changes to input features. However, existing methods rely on fixed sets of mutable features, which makes counterfactual explanations inflexible for users with heterogeneous real-world constraints. Here, we introduce Flexible Counterfactual Explanations, a framework incorporating counterfactual templates, which allows users to dynamically specify mutable features at inference time. In our implementation, we use Generative Adversarial Networks (FCEGAN), which align explanations with user-defined constraints without requiring model retraining or additional optimization. Furthermore, FCEGAN is designed for black-box scenarios, leveraging historical prediction datasets to generate explanations without direct access to model internals. Experiments across economic and healthcare datasets demonstrate that FCEGAN significantly improves counterfactual explanations' validity compared to traditional benchmark methods. By integrating user-driven flexibility and black-box compatibility, counterfactual templates support personalized explanations tailored to user constraints.