Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation frameworks are useful tools for representing and reasoning with information in a variety of settings, e.g. in supplementing AI models as they perform classification tasks, with a notable benefit of providing additional explainability. In this paper, we introduce contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), one such formalism. Unlike most existing explanations for QBAFs, which explain the reasoning outcome of a single argument of interest (i.e. a topic argument), contrastive explanations explain the difference between two topic arguments. We introduce a general form of contrastive attribution functions (CAFs) and establish a set of general properties they should satisfy. We introduce CAFs based on removal, gradients and Shapley-values, and study their properties. Finally, to illustrate contrastive explanations, we demonstrate their usefulness in healthcare and bias identification settings.

Automated Testing of LLM-Based Post Hoc Explainers Using Model Checking as an Oracle

Large language models (LLMs) are used as post hoc explainers of sequential decision-making policies, producing natural-language explanations of why an action was chosen. However, LLMs often generate plausible but incorrect statements, and no existing approach systematically tests whether such explanations are faithful to the underlying environment. Two classic software testing challenges stand in the way: there is no oracle for the correctness of an explanation, and the test inputs, natural language queries about a policy's behavior, lack the structure needed for systematic test case generation. We address both. Probabilistic model checking provides the test oracle, computing exact reference results against which LLM answers are graded automatically. A taxonomy of post hoc query categories structures the input space around the environment-level facts from which policy explanations are composed; test cases generated from it are prioritized by question-specific diagnostic difficulty scores. Across seven MDP environments, the testing separates three open-weight LLMs: a reasoning model passes 85% of test cases, a mid-size model 70%, and a 1B model falls below the random baseline, while prioritization surfaces significantly harder cases than random selection. Our results indicate how trustworthy LLM-generated explanations are in model-free settings, where the same LLMs are used but no oracle exists to verify them.

NeSy-RAG: Neuro-Symbolic RAG for Explainable Question Answering

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves question answering by grounding large language models (LLMs) in external knowledge such as text corpora. However, its reasoning process remains largely opaque: intermediate reasoning steps are difficult to verify and cannot be reliably attributed to specific evidence. Moreover, missing user-specific context is rarely detected systematically, often leading to incomplete or incorrect output. We propose NeSy-RAG, a modular neuro-symbolic RAG framework that synthesizes attributable Prolog modules from retrieved text chunks. For each chunk, the system generates semantically meaningful predicates that encode Boolean claims, which may depend on user facts. Using joint natural language-code embeddings, predicates are retrieved and composed into Prolog queries. To address incomplete user context, we introduce a symbolic knowledge-gap detection mechanism that identifies missing user facts whose truth values affect the query outcome and automatically triggers follow-up interactions. Executing the resulting Prolog queries yields deterministic answers together with transparent execution traces that link each reasoning step to its originating source. On the ShARC benchmark, without domain-specific training, NeSy-RAG achieves 61.1% accuracy, outperforming a same-model RAG baseline that achieves 42.8% accuracy.

dtControl2+$\varepsilon$: Trading Optimality for Explainability in MDPs via Decision Trees

Over the past decade, decision trees have been used to represent controllers (a.k.a. policies) in an explainable way, with dtControl2 as a current state-of-the-art tool. However, for systems that are large or have many corner cases, even such representations tend to be too complex and not human-comprehensible. Unfortunately, reducing the size of the decision tree is not straightforward, as missing just a single crucial case might result in an incorrect controller. We tackle this issue in the setting of Markov decision processes, extending dtControl2 by "$\varepsilon$" functionality: Given an allowed imprecision $\varepsilon \geq 0$, we construct a smaller decision tree, distilling the essence of the controller, while still guaranteeing its $\varepsilon$-optimality. This enables us to provide tunably simpler explanations, omitting a controllable amount of detail. Our tool constructs decision trees that are orders of magnitude smaller than the state of the art.

Explainable Belief Harmonization under Dynamic Epistemic Partitions

Existing approaches to multi-agent belief combination have established mature foundations for combining uncertain beliefs under common assumptions: consensus methods use iterative averaging, logic-based methods resolve conflicting knowledge bases, and epistemic logic analyzes agents' information states. Typically, these approaches assume that the structure determining what each agent can represent remains fixed. However, in many scenarios, agents gain or lose observational capacity during execution, and what was once admissible may become structurally impossible. This paper presents a formal framework for handling such runtime changes in epistemic partitions over continuous belief profiles. A hybrid approach exploits the advantages of answer set programming in elaboration tolerance, declarative integrity constraints, and explanations, with the numerical flexibility of Python. The framework applies to domains where agents operate at heterogeneous and possibly changing levels of resolution, and provides formal guarantees of admissibility preservation under refinement, unique mass-preserving repair under coarsening, and explanation completeness. Evaluation across 100 randomly generated topology changes confirms complete violation detection and explanation coverage.

ExplAIner: A Declarative Query Language for Explaining Classification Models

The XAI community has studied a wide range of queries and scores for explaining predictions of ML models. From a data management perspective, this proliferation of explanation notions calls for declarative query languages in which such notions can be specified, combined, and analyzed uniformly. In this paper, we develop such a framework for Boolean models. We first revisit FOIL, an interpretability query language for black-box models, and show that it has two fundamental limitations: it cannot express central optimality-based explanation queries, and its evaluation problem over decision trees is hard for every level of the polynomial hierarchy. We then introduce ExplAIner, a query language based on FOIL with an extended vocabulary and a layered structure. We show that ExplAIner can express a broad family of explanation notions, including abductive, contrastive, feature-based, and distance-based queries. We also prove that the evaluation problem for each query in ExplAIner belongs to the Boolean hierarchy over every class of Boolean models for which some basic predicates can be evaluated in polynomial time. In particular, that property holds for deterministic and decomposable Boolean circuits. Finally, we introduce Opt-FOIL, an optimization-oriented fragment of ExplAIner for computing explanations that are minimal with respect to strict partial orders, and prove that its evaluation problem is in $\mathrm{FP}^{\mathrm{NP}}$ under the same tractability assumptions. These complexity results have a direct algorithmic consequence: a fixed ExplAIner query can be evaluated with a fixed number of calls to a SAT solver, while a notion of explanation specified in Opt-FOIL can be computed with a polynomial number of such calls. This is particularly relevant in formal XAI, where SAT solvers have been successfully used to compute explanations for several classes of ML models.

SciText2Eq: Assessing LLMs for Explainable Equation Generation for Scientific Creativity

This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

Beyond Explaining Predictions: Logic-Based Explanations for Confidence in Machine Learning Models

Machine learning is increasingly used in critical domains, where both predictions and their associated confidence levels influence important decisions. To enhance transparency in such scenarios, it is important to understand why a model is confident or uncertain about its predictions. Recent logic-based approaches provide abductive explanations, minimal subsets of features sufficient to preserve the predicted class, with correctness guarantees. However, these methods focus solely on classification behavior and may produce explanations that cover instances with low predictive confidence. In this work, we introduce the concept of Minimum Confidence Threshold (MCT), which quantifies the weakest confidence guarantee provided by an abductive explanation. Building upon this concept, we propose confidence-aware abductive explanations, which preserve not only the predicted class but also a user-specified confidence guarantee. We formulate MCT computation as an optimization problem and introduce an algorithm for generating minimal explanations that satisfy a desired confidence threshold. We evaluate the proposed framework on boosted trees for binary classification, although the approach is applicable to other machine learning models that provide confidence scores. Experimental results show that traditional abductive explanations often provide substantially weaker confidence guarantees than the confidence associated with the explained instance itself. In contrast, confidence-aware explanations consistently improve the minimum confidence guaranteed by an explanation while requiring only a modest increase in explanation length. These properties make the proposed approach particularly suitable for applications where both predictive correctness and confidence are essential for trustworthy decision making.