Explainability is important for the transparency of autonomous and intelligent systems and for helping to support the development of appropriate levels of trust. There has been considerable work on developing approaches for explaining systems and there are standards that specify requirements for transparency. However, there is a gap: the standards are too high-level and do not adequately specify requirements for explainability. This paper develops a scoresheet that can be used to specify explainability requirements or to assess the explainability aspects provided for particular applications. The scoresheet is developed by considering the requirements of a range of stakeholders and is applicable to Multiagent Systems as well as other AI technologies. We also provide guidance for how to use the scoresheet and illustrate its generality and usefulness by applying it to a range of applications.

There has been considerable recent interest in explainability in AI, especially with black-box machine learning models. As correctly observed by the planning community, when the application at hand is not a single-shot decision or prediction, but a sequence of actions that depend on observations, a richer notion of explanations are desirable. In this paper, we look to provide a formal account of ``counterfactual explanations," based in terms of action sequences. We then show that this naturally leads to an account of model reconciliation, which might take the form of the user correcting the agent's model, or suggesting actions to the agent's plan. For this, we will need to articulate what is true versus what is known, and we appeal to a modal fragment of the situation calculus to formalise these intuitions. We consider various settings: the agent knowing partial truths, weakened truths and having false beliefs, and show that our definitions easily generalize to these different settings.

Explainable AI (XAI) has become a crucial component of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) to enhance transparency, trust, and clinical adoption. However, while many XAI methods have been proposed, their effectiveness in real-world medical settings remains underexplored. This paper provides a survey of human-centered evaluations of Explainable AI methods in Clinical Decision Support Systems. By categorizing existing works based on XAI methodologies, evaluation frameworks, and clinical adoption challenges, we offer a structured understanding of the landscape. Our findings reveal key challenges in the integration of XAI into healthcare workflows and propose a structured framework to align the evaluation methods of XAI with the clinical needs of stakeholders.

Ensuring transparency in AI decision-making requires interpretable explanations, particularly at the instance level. Counterfactual explanations are a powerful tool for this purpose, but existing techniques frequently depend on synthetic examples, introducing biases from unrealistic assumptions, flawed models, or skewed data. Many methods also assume full dataset availability, an impractical constraint in real-time environments where data flows continuously. In contrast, streaming explanations offer adaptive, real-time insights without requiring persistent storage of the entire dataset. This work introduces a scalable, model-free approach to selecting diverse and relevant counterfactual examples directly from observed data. Our algorithm operates efficiently in streaming settings, maintaining $O(\log k)$ update complexity per item while ensuring high-quality counterfactual selection. Empirical evaluations on both real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate superior performance over baseline methods, with robust behavior even under adversarial conditions.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global health issue of significance that must be diagnosed as early as possible and managed well. This study presents a framework for diabetes prediction using Machine Learning (ML) models, complemented with eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) tools, to investigate both the predictive accuracy and interpretability of the predictions from ML models. Data Preprocessing is based on the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) and feature scaling used on the Diabetes Binary Health Indicators dataset to deal with class imbalance and variability of clinical features. The ensemble model provided high accuracy, with a test accuracy of 92.50% and an ROC-AUC of 0.975. BMI, Age, General Health, Income, and Physical Activity were the most influential predictors obtained from the model explanations. The results of this study suggest that ML combined with XAI is a promising means of developing accurate and computationally transparent tools for use in healthcare systems.

After the seminal work of [1], the argumentation community's focus has shifted to the relation between arguments, abstracting the content of the arguments. Thus, debates or discussions are represented as directed graphs, with arguments as nodes and attacks between arguments as directed edges. Several extension-based semantics have been defined to obtain conclusions from argumentation graphs. Such semantics identify subsets of arguments (called extensions), representing consistent conclusions [2, 3, 4]. Motivated by the work of [5], researchers started to focus on semantics which could give a more gradual view on arguments' acceptability by ranking them from the "less attacked" to the most (not necessarily based on the cardinality or quality of the attackers) [6].

Transparency and interpretability are crucial for enhancing customer confidence and user engagement, especially when dealing with black-box Machine Learning (ML)-based recommendation systems. Modern recommendation systems leverage Graph Neural Network (GNN) due to their ability to produce high-quality recommendations in terms of both relevance and diversity. Therefore, the explainability of GNN is especially important for Link Prediction (LP) tasks since recommending relevant items can be viewed as predicting links between users and items. GNN explainability has been a well-studied field, existing methods primarily focus on node or graph-level tasks, leaving a gap in LP explanation techniques. This work introduces Z-REx, a GNN explanation framework designed explicitly for heterogeneous link prediction tasks. Z-REx utilizes structural and attribute perturbation to identify critical sub-structures and important features while reducing the search space by leveraging domain-specific knowledge. In our experimentation, we show the efficacy of Z-REx in generating contextually relevant and human-interpretable explanations for ZiGNN, a GNN-based recommendation engine, using a real-world real-estate dataset from Zillow Group, Inc. We also compare Z-REx to State-of-The-Art (SOTA) GNN explainers to show Z-REx's superiority in producing high-quality human-interpretable explanations.

Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer's stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.

In principle, explanations are intended as a way to increase trust in machine learning models and are often obligated by regulations. However, many circumstances where these are demanded are adversarial in nature, meaning the involved parties have misaligned interests and are incentivized to manipulate explanations for their purpose. As a result, explainability methods fail to be operational in such settings despite the demand \cite{bordt2022post}. In this paper, we take a step towards operationalizing explanations in adversarial scenarios with Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), a cryptographic primitive. Specifically we explore ZKP-amenable versions of the popular explainability algorithm LIME and evaluate their performance on Neural Networks and Random Forests.

Objective: Assessing Alzheimer's disease (AD) using high-dimensional radiology images is clinically important but challenging. Although Artificial Intelligence (AI) has advanced AD diagnosis, it remains unclear how to design AI models embracing predictability and explainability. Here, we propose VisTA, a multimodal language-vision model assisted by contrastive learning, to optimize disease prediction and evidence-based, interpretable explanations for clinical decision-making. Methods: We developed VisTA (Vision-Text Alignment Model) for AD diagnosis. Architecturally, we built VisTA from BiomedCLIP and fine-tuned it using contrastive learning to align images with verified abnormalities and their descriptions. To train VisTA, we used a constructed reference dataset containing images, abnormality types, and descriptions verified by medical experts. VisTA produces four outputs: predicted abnormality type, similarity to reference cases, evidence-driven explanation, and final AD diagnoses. To illustrate VisTA's efficacy, we reported accuracy metrics for abnormality retrieval and dementia prediction. To demonstrate VisTA's explainability, we compared its explanations with human experts' explanations. Results: Compared to 15 million images used for baseline pretraining, VisTA only used 170 samples for fine-tuning and obtained significant improvement in abnormality retrieval and dementia prediction. For abnormality retrieval, VisTA reached 74% accuracy and an AUC of 0.87 (26% and 0.74, respectively, from baseline models). For dementia prediction, VisTA achieved 88% accuracy and an AUC of 0.82 (30% and 0.57, respectively, from baseline models). The generated explanations agreed strongly with human experts' and provided insights into the diagnostic process. Taken together, VisTA optimize prediction, clinical reasoning, and explanation.