Mediation is often treated as an extension of negotiation, without taking into account the unique role that norms and facts play in legal mediation. Additionally, current approaches for updating argument acceptability in response to changing variables frequently require the introduction of new arguments or the removal of existing ones, which can be inefficient and cumbersome in decision-making processes within legal disputes. In this paper, our contribution is two-fold. First, we introduce a QuAM (Quantitative Argumentation Mediate) framework, which integrates the parties' knowledge and the mediator's knowledge, including facts and legal norms, when determining the acceptability of a mediation goal. Second, we develop a new formalism to model the relationship between the acceptability of a goal argument and the values assigned to a variable associated with the argument. We use a real-world legal mediation as a running example to illustrate our approach.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have substantially improved dermatologists' diagnostic accuracy for melanoma, with explainable AI (XAI) systems further enhancing clinicians' confidence and trust in AI-driven decisions. Despite these advancements, there remains a critical need for objective evaluation of how dermatologists engage with both AI and XAI tools. In this study, 76 dermatologists participated in a reader study, diagnosing 16 dermoscopic images of melanomas and nevi using an XAI system that provides detailed, domain-specific explanations. Eye-tracking technology was employed to assess their interactions. Diagnostic performance was compared with that of a standard AI system lacking explanatory features. Our findings reveal that XAI systems improved balanced diagnostic accuracy by 2.8 percentage points relative to standard AI. Moreover, diagnostic disagreements with AI/XAI systems and complex lesions were associated with elevated cognitive load, as evidenced by increased ocular fixations. These insights have significant implications for clinical practice, the design of AI tools for visual tasks, and the broader development of XAI in medical diagnostics.

Clustering algorithms rely on complex optimisation processes that may be difficult to comprehend, especially for individuals who lack technical expertise. While many explainable artificial intelligence techniques exist for supervised machine learning, unsupervised learning -- and clustering in particular -- has been largely neglected. To complicate matters further, the notion of a ``true'' cluster is inherently challenging to define. These facets of unsupervised learning and its explainability make it difficult to foster trust in such methods and curtail their adoption. To address these challenges, we propose a new, model-agnostic technique for explaining clustering algorithms with counterfactual statements. Our approach relies on a novel soft-scoring method that captures the spatial information utilised by clustering models. It builds upon a state-of-the-art Bayesian counterfactual generator for supervised learning to deliver high-quality explanations. We evaluate its performance on five datasets and two clustering algorithms, and demonstrate that introducing soft scores to guide counterfactual search significantly improves the results.

The application of deep learning in medical imaging has significantly advanced diagnostic capabilities, enhancing both accuracy and efficiency. Despite these benefits, the lack of transparency in these AI models, often termed "black boxes," raises concerns about their reliability in clinical settings. Explainable AI (XAI) aims to mitigate these concerns by developing methods that make AI decisions understandable and trustworthy. In this study, we propose Tumor Aware Counterfactual Explanations (TACE), a framework designed to generate reliable counterfactual explanations for medical images. Unlike existing methods, TACE focuses on modifying tumor-specific features without altering the overall organ structure, ensuring the faithfulness of the counterfactuals. We achieve this by including an additional step in the generation process which allows to modify only the region of interest (ROI), thus yielding more reliable counterfactuals as the rest of the organ remains unchanged. We evaluate our method on mammography images and brain MRI. We find that our method far exceeds existing state-of-the-art techniques in quality, faithfulness, and generation speed of counterfactuals. Indeed, more faithful explanations lead to a significant improvement in classification success rates, with a 10.69% increase for breast cancer and a 98.02% increase for brain tumors. The code of our work is available at https://github.com/ispamm/TACE.

In our previous research, we provided a reasoning system (called LeSAC) based on argumentation theory to provide legal support to designers during the design process. Building on this, this paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences. We illustrate the advantages and necessity of introducing deontic logic and designing explanations under LeSAC by modelling two cases in the context of autonomous driving. In particular, this paper also discusses the requirements of the updated LeSAC to guarantee rationality, and proves that a well-defined LeSAC can satisfy the rationality postulate for rule-based argumentation frameworks. This ensures the system's ability to provide coherent, legally valid explanations for complex design decisions.

Goal recognition (GR) involves inferring an agent's unobserved goal from a sequence of observations. This is a critical problem in AI with diverse applications. Traditionally, GR has been addressed using 'inference to the best explanation' or abduction, where hypotheses about the agent's goals are generated as the most plausible explanations for observed behavior. Alternatively, some approaches enhance interpretability by ensuring that an agent's behavior aligns with an observer's expectations or by making the reasoning behind decisions more transparent. In this work, we tackle a different challenge: explaining the GR process in a way that is comprehensible to humans. We introduce and evaluate an explainable model for goal recognition (GR) agents, grounded in the theoretical framework and cognitive processes underlying human behavior explanation. Drawing on insights from two human-agent studies, we propose a conceptual framework for human-centered explanations of GR. Using this framework, we develop the eXplainable Goal Recognition (XGR) model, which generates explanations for both why and why not questions. We evaluate the model computationally across eight GR benchmarks and through three user studies. The first study assesses the efficiency of generating human-like explanations within the Sokoban game domain, the second examines perceived explainability in the same domain, and the third evaluates the model's effectiveness in aiding decision-making in illegal fishing detection. Results demonstrate that the XGR model significantly enhances user understanding, trust, and decision-making compared to baseline models, underscoring its potential to improve human-agent collaboration.

In time-series classification, understanding model decisions is crucial for their application in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and finance. Counterfactual explanations, which provide insights by presenting alternative inputs that change model predictions, offer a promising solution. However, existing methods for generating counterfactual explanations for time-series data often struggle with balancing key objectives like proximity, sparsity, and validity. In this paper, we introduce TX-Gen, a novel algorithm for generating counterfactual explanations based on the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II). TX-Gen leverages evolutionary multi-objective optimization to find a diverse set of counterfactuals that are both sparse and valid, while maintaining minimal dissimilarity to the original time series. By incorporating a flexible reference-guided mechanism, our method improves the plausibility and interpretability of the counterfactuals without relying on predefined assumptions. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that TX-Gen outperforms existing methods in generating high-quality counterfactuals, making time-series models more transparent and interpretable.

The complex nature of disease mechanisms and the variability of patient symptoms present significant obstacles in developing effective diagnostic tools. Although machine learning has made considerable advances in medical diagnosis, its decision-making processes frequently lack transparency, which can jeopardize patient outcomes. This underscores the critical need for Explainable AI (XAI), which not only offers greater clarity but also has the potential to significantly improve patient care. In this literature review, we conduct a detailed analysis of analyzing XAI methods identified through searches across various databases, focusing on chronic conditions such as Parkinson's, stroke, depression, cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. The literature search revealed the application of 9 trending XAI algorithms in the field of healthcare and highlighted the pros and cons of each of them. Thus, the article is concluded with a critical appraisal of the challenges and future research opportunities for XAI in human health monitoring.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence systems has brought the challenge of AI alignment to the forefront of research, particularly in complex decision-making and task execution. As these systems surpass human-level performance in sophisticated problems, ensuring their alignment with human values, intentions, and ethical guidelines becomes crucial. Building on previous work in explanation generation for human-agent alignment, we address the more complex dynamics of multi-agent systems and human-AI teams. This paper introduces a novel approach to model alignment through weak-to-strong generalization in the context of language models. We present a framework where a strong model facilitates the improvement of a weaker model, bridging the gap between explanation generation and model alignment. Our method, formalized as a facilitation function, allows for the transfer of capabilities from advanced models to less capable ones without direct access to extensive training data. Our results suggest that this facilitation-based approach not only enhances model performance but also provides insights into the nature of model alignment and the potential for scalable oversight of AI systems.

Explanations for autonomous vehicle (AV) decisions may build trust, however, explanations can contain errors. In a simulated driving study (n = 232), we tested how AV explanation errors, driving context characteristics (perceived harm and driving difficulty), and personal traits (prior trust and expertise) affected a passenger's comfort in relying on an AV, preference for control, confidence in the AV's ability, and explanation satisfaction. Errors negatively affected all outcomes. Surprisingly, despite identical driving, explanation errors reduced ratings of the AV's driving ability. Severity and potential harm amplified the negative impact of errors. Contextual harm and driving difficulty directly impacted outcome ratings and influenced the relationship between errors and outcomes. Prior trust and expertise were positively associated with outcome ratings. Results emphasize the need for accurate, contextually adaptive, and personalized AV explanations to foster trust, reliance, satisfaction, and confidence. We conclude with design, research, and deployment recommendations for trustworthy AV explanation systems.