As machine learning models become increasingly prevalent in time series applications, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are essential for understanding their predictions. Within XAI, feature attribution methods aim to identify which input features contributed the most to a model's prediction, with their evaluation typically relying on perturbation-based metrics. Through empirical analysis across multiple datasets, model architectures, and perturbation strategies, we identify important class-dependent effects in these metrics: they show varying effectiveness across classes, achieving strong results for some while remaining less sensitive to others. In particular, we find that the most effective perturbation strategies often demonstrate the most pronounced class differences. Our analysis suggests that these effects arise from the learned biases of classifiers, indicating that perturbation-based evaluation may reflect specific model behaviors rather than intrinsic attribution quality. We propose an evaluation framework with a class-aware penalty term to help assess and account for these effects in evaluating feature attributions. Although our analysis focuses on time series classification, these class-dependent effects likely extend to other structured data domains where perturbation-based evaluation is common.

This position paper argues that, to its detriment, transparency research overlooks many foundational concepts of artificial intelligence. Here, we focus on uncertainty quantification -- in the context of ante-hoc interpretability and counterfactual explainability -- showing how its adoption could address key challenges in the field. First, we posit that uncertainty and ante-hoc interpretability offer complementary views of the same underlying idea; second, we assert that uncertainty provides a principled unifying framework for counterfactual explainability. Consequently, inherently transparent models can benefit from human-centred explanatory insights -- like counterfactuals -- which are otherwise missing. At a higher level, integrating artificial intelligence fundamentals into transparency research promises to yield more reliable, robust and understandable predictive models.

Explainable AI is increasingly employing argumentation methods to facilitate interactive explanations between AI agents and human users. While existing approaches typically rely on predetermined human user models, there remains a critical gap in dynamically learning and updating these models during interactions. In this paper, we present a framework that enables AI agents to adapt their understanding of human users through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach, called Persona, draws on prospect theory and integrates a probability weighting function with a Bayesian belief update mechanism that refines a probability distribution over possible human models based on exchanged arguments. Through empirical evaluations with human users in an applied argumentation setting, we demonstrate that Persona effectively captures evolving human beliefs, facilitates personalized interactions, and outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

The assessment of argument quality depends on well-established logical, rhetorical, and dialectical properties that are unavoidably subjective: multiple valid assessments may exist, there is no unequivocal ground truth. This aligns with recent paths in machine learning, which embrace the co-existence of different perspectives. However, this potential remains largely unexplored in NLP research on argument quality. One crucial reason seems to be the yet unexplored availability of suitable datasets. We fill this gap by conducting a systematic review of argument quality datasets. We assign them to a multi-layered categorization targeting two aspects: (a) What has been annotated: we collect the quality dimensions covered in datasets and consolidate them in an overarching taxonomy, increasing dataset comparability and interoperability. (b) Who annotated: we survey what information is given about annotators, enabling perspectivist research and grounding our recommendations for future actions. To this end, we discuss datasets suitable for developing perspectivist models (i.e., those containing individual, non-aggregated annotations), and we showcase the importance of a controlled selection of annotators in a pilot study.

--This work presents REFLEX: Robotic Explanations to FaiLures and Human EXpressions, a comprehensive mul-timodal dataset capturing human reactions to robot failures and subsequent explanations in collaborative settings. It aims to facilitate research into human-robot interaction dynamics, addressing the need to study reactions to both initial failures and explanations, as well as the evolution of these reactions in long-term interactions. By providing rich, annotated data on human responses to different types of failures, explanation levels, and explanation varying strategies, the dataset contributes to the development of more robust, adaptive, and satisfying robotic systems capable of maintaining positive relationships with human collaborators, even during challenges like repeated failures. I NTRODUCTION As robots become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives, from homes and workplaces to public spaces, the need to understand and improve human-robot interaction (HRI) has never been more critical. Despite significant advancements in robotics, they are still prone to failures, ranging from minor glitches to serious malfunctions.

The increasing use of Machine Learning (ML) models to aid decision-making in high-stakes industries demands explainability to facilitate trust. Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) are ideally suited for this, as they can offer insights into the predictions of an ML model by illustrating how changes in its input data may lead to different outcomes. However, for CEs to realise their explanatory potential, significant challenges remain in ensuring their robustness under slight changes in the scenario being explained. Despite the widespread recognition of CEs' robustness as a fundamental requirement, a lack of standardised tools and benchmarks hinders a comprehensive and effective comparison of robust CE generation methods. In this paper, we introduce RobustX, an open-source Python library implementing a collection of CE generation and evaluation methods, with a focus on the robustness property. RobustX provides interfaces to several existing methods from the literature, enabling streamlined access to state-of-the-art techniques. The library is also easily extensible, allowing fast prototyping of novel robust CE generation and evaluation methods.

Deep learning models are powerful image classifiers but their opacity hinders their trustworthiness. Explanation methods for capturing the reasoning process within these classifiers faithfully and in a clear manner are scarce, due to their sheer complexity and size. We provide a solution for this problem by defining a novel method for explaining the outputs of image classifiers with debates between two agents, each arguing for a particular class. We obtain these debates as concrete instances of Free Argumentative eXchanges (FAXs), a novel argumentation-based multi-agent framework allowing agents to internalise opinions by other agents differently than originally stated. We define two metrics (consensus and persuasion rate) to assess the usefulness of FAXs as argumentative explanations for image classifiers. We then conduct a number of empirical experiments showing that FAXs perform well along these metrics as well as being more faithful to the image classifiers than conventional, non-argumentative explanation methods. All our implementations can be found at https://github.com/koriavinash1/FAX.

Generating multiple counterfactual explanations for different modes within a class presents a significant challenge, as these modes are distinct yet converge under the same classification. Diffusion probabilistic models (DPMs) have demonstrated a strong ability to capture the underlying modes of data distributions. In this paper, we harness the power of a Diffusion Autoencoder to generate multiple distinct counterfactual explanations. By clustering in the latent space, we uncover the directions corresponding to the different modes within a class, enabling the generation of diverse and meaningful counterfactuals. We introduce a novel methodology, DifCluE, which consistently identifies these modes and produces more reliable counterfactual explanations. Our experimental results demonstrate that DifCluE outperforms the current state-of-the-art in generating multiple counterfactual explanations, offering a significant advance- ment in model interpretability.

Recent XAI studies have investigated what constitutes a \textit{good} explanation in AI-assisted decision-making. Despite the widely accepted human-friendly properties of explanations, such as contrastive and selective, existing studies have yielded inconsistent findings. To address these gaps, our study focuses on the cognitive dimensions of explanation evaluation, by evaluating six explanations with different contrastive strategies and information selectivity and scrutinizing factors behind their valuation process. Our analysis results find that contrastive explanations are not the most preferable or understandable in general; Rather, different contrastive and selective explanations were appreciated to a different extent based on who they are, when, how, and what to explain -- with different level of cognitive load and engagement and sociotechnical contexts. Given these findings, we call for a nuanced view of explanation strategies, with implications for designing AI interfaces to accommodate individual and contextual differences in AI-assisted decision-making.

Explainable AI (XAI) is critical for ensuring transparency, accountability, and trust in machine learning systems as black-box models are increasingly deployed within high-stakes domains. Among XAI methods, Shapley values are widely used for their fairness and consistency axioms. However, prevalent Shapley value approximation methods commonly rely on abstract baselines or computationally intensive calculations, which can limit their interpretability and scalability. To address such challenges, we propose Pairwise Shapley Values, a novel framework that grounds feature attributions in explicit, human-relatable comparisons between pairs of data instances proximal in feature space. Our method introduces pairwise reference selection combined with single-value imputation to deliver intuitive, model-agnostic explanations while significantly reducing computational overhead. Here, we demonstrate that Pairwise Shapley Values enhance interpretability across diverse regression and classification scenarios--including real estate pricing, polymer property prediction, and drug discovery datasets. We conclude that the proposed methods enable more transparent AI systems and advance the real-world applicability of XAI.