arXiv subjects

Fosca Giannotti

Publications and source records attributed to Fosca Giannotti.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Virgil: Navigating Explainability for Transformer-based Language Models

Explainability for transformer-based language models is becoming crucial as these systems are deployed in high-stakes applications. As a result, the ecosystem of explainability tools is rapidly evolving, becoming richer, but also more fragmented and harder to navigate. To address this challenge, we present Virgil, an interactive system that lets practitioners and researchers, including non-experts, navigate explainability tools for transformer language models. Supported by a curated knowledge base, the system enables users to discover and compare explainability tools within a unified interface.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Plausible to Actionable: A Position on LLM Self-Explanations

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness.Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Explainable AI for Cancer Drug Response Prediction: Beyond Univariate Feature Attributions

Predicting cancer drug response from transcriptomic profiles is a cornerstone of precision oncology, yet the scientific value of machine learning models hinges not solely on predictive accuracy, but also on their capacity to generate reliable biological insights. Current explainability approaches in this setting are computationally costly, lack robustness, and reduce complex drug response to univariate gene importance scores, overlooking the coordinated gene activity that drives sensitivity and resistance. In this work, we present ILLUME+, a scalable post-hoc explainability framework that moves beyond single-gene assessments to capture multiple, complementary forms of explanation. Integrated into our end-to-end pipeline, ILLUME+ produces more stable gene importance scores than existing baselines, recovers established drug-gene associations and mechanisms of action, and enables AI-assisted hypothesis generation to uncover novel interaction-driven molecular signals in cancer biology.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Disagreeing Rationales: Rethinking Classification and Explainability Evaluation in Hate Speech Detection

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Diversity Paradox revisited: Systemic Effects of Feedback Loops in Recommender Systems

Recommender systems shape individual choices through feedback loops in which user behavior and algorithmic recommendations coevolve over time. The systemic effects of these loops remain poorly understood, in part due to unrealistic assumptions in existing simulation studies. We propose a feedback-loop model that captures implicit feedback, periodic retraining, probabilistic adoption of recommendations, and heterogeneous recommender systems. We apply the framework on online retail and music streaming data and analyze systemic effects of the feedback loop. We find that increasing recommender adoption may lead to a progressive diversification of individual consumption, while collective demand is redistributed in model- and domain-dependent ways, often amplifying popularity concentration. Temporal analyses further reveal that apparent increases in individual diversity observed in static evaluations are illusory: when adoption is fixed and time unfolds, individual diversity consistently decreases across all models. Our results highlight the need to move beyond static evaluations and explicitly account for feedback-loop dynamics when designing recommender systems.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Comparing Explanations is Not Enough, Explain the Change: New Standards are Needed to Explain Behavioral Shifts in Large Language Models

Large-scale foundation models exhibit behavioral shifts when subjected to interventions such as scaling, fine-tuning, reinforcement learning with human feedback, or in-context learning. Current explainability methods are structurally ill-suited to explain these shifts, because they either treat models as static objects, as traditional eXplainable AI (XAI) approaches do, or merely compare independent explanations across different checkpoints of a model. As a result, these approaches fail to explain the functional transition between two model instances in which a certain behavior has shifted following an intervention. This gap creates significant governance risks across jurisdictions including the EU AI Act, US state legislation, and Chinese AI regulations, which require documenting causal chains for substantial system modifications. This position paper argues that explaining behavioral shifts in large language models requires a principled approach that treats the shift itself as the primary object of explanation: namely, one that explains how and why an intervention transforms a reference model into an updated model with different behavior. To support this claim, we introduce Comparative XAI (XAI$_\Delta$), a novel XAI paradigm aimed at explaining the difference between two model checkpoints where a behavior has shifted, together with a set of desiderata specifying what XAI$_\Delta$ explainers and explanations must satisfy, including comparability, validity, actionability, and monitoring, with the goal of grounding model auditing in explicit, measurable requirements. Finally, we provide preliminary evidence suggesting the need for XAI$_\Delta$ in practice through illustrative experiments, compiling the resulting findings into a transition report directly usable for governance and incident documentation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

A Simulation Framework for Studying Systemic Effects of Feedback Loops in Recommender Systems

Recommender systems continuously interact with users, creating feedback loops that shape both individual behavior and collective market dynamics. This paper introduces a simulation framework to model these loops in online retail environments, where recommenders are periodically retrained on evolving user-item interactions. Using the Amazon e-Commerce dataset, we analyze how different recommendation algorithms influence diversity, purchase concentration, and user homogenization over time. Results reveal a systematic trade-off: while the feedback loop increases individual diversity, it simultaneously reduces collective diversity and concentrates demand on a few popular items. Moreover, for some recommender systems, the feedback loop increases user homogenization over time, making user purchase profiles increasingly similar. These findings underscore the need for recommender designs that balance personalization with long-term diversity.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Perspectives in Play: A Multi-Perspective Approach for More Inclusive NLP Systems

In the realm of Natural Language Processing (NLP), common approaches for handling human disagreement consist of aggregating annotators' viewpoints to establish a single ground truth. However, prior studies show that disregarding individual opinions can lead can lead to the side effect of underrepresenting minority perspectives, especially in subjective tasks, where annotators may systematically disagree because of their preferences. Recognizing that labels reflect the diverse backgrounds, life experiences, and values of individuals, this study proposes a new multi-perspective approach using soft labels to encourage the development of the next generation of perspective aware models, more inclusive and pluralistic. We conduct an extensive analysis across diverse subjective text classification tasks, including hate speech, irony, abusive language, and stance detection, to highlight the importance of capturing human disagreements, often overlooked by traditional aggregation methods. Results show that the multi-perspective approach not only better approximates human label distributions, as measured by Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD), but also achieves superior classification performance (higher F1 scores), outperforming traditional approaches. However, our approach exhibits lower confidence in tasks like irony and stance detection, likely due to the inherent subjectivity present in the texts. Lastly, leveraging Explainable AI (XAI), we explore model uncertainty and uncover meaningful insights into model predictions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Bridging the Gap: In-Context Learning for Modeling Human Disagreement

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on NLP classification tasks. However, they typically rely on aggregated labels-often via majority voting-which can obscure the human disagreement inherent in subjective annotations. This study examines whether LLMs can capture multiple perspectives and reflect annotator disagreement in subjective tasks such as hate speech and offensive language detection. We use in-context learning (ICL) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, evaluating four open-source LLMs across three label modeling strategies: aggregated hard labels, and disaggregated hard and soft labels. In few-shot prompting, we assess demonstration selection methods based on textual similarity (BM25, PLM-based), annotation disagreement (entropy), a combined ranking, and example ordering strategies (random vs. curriculum-based). Results show that multi-perspective generation is viable in zero-shot settings, while few-shot setups often fail to capture the full spectrum of human judgments. Prompt design and demonstration selection notably affect performance, though example ordering has limited impact. These findings highlight the challenges of modeling subjectivity with LLMs and the importance of building more perspective-aware, socially intelligent models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Explanations Go Linear: Post-hoc Explainability for Tabular Data with Interpretable Meta-Encoding

Post-hoc explainability is essential for understanding black-box machine learning models. Surrogate-based techniques are widely used for local and global model-agnostic explanations but have significant limitations. Local surrogates capture non-linearities but are computationally expensive and sensitive to parameters, while global surrogates are more efficient but struggle with complex local behaviors. In this paper, we present ILLUME, a flexible and interpretable framework grounded in representation learning, that can be integrated with various surrogate models to provide explanations for any black-box classifier. Specifically, our approach combines a globally trained surrogate with instance-specific linear transformations learned with a meta-encoder to generate both local and global explanations. Through extensive empirical evaluations, we demonstrate the effectiveness of ILLUME in producing feature attributions and decision rules that are not only accurate but also robust and computationally efficient, thus providing a unified explanation framework that effectively addresses the limitations of traditional surrogate methods.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Interpretable and Fair Mechanisms for Abstaining Classifiers

Abstaining classifiers have the option to refrain from providing a prediction for instances that are difficult to classify. The abstention mechanism is designed to trade off the classifier's performance on the accepted data while ensuring a minimum number of predictions. In this setting, often fairness concerns arise when the abstention mechanism solely reduces errors for the majority groups of the data, resulting in increased performance differences across demographic groups. While there exist a bunch of methods that aim to reduce discrimination when abstaining, there is no mechanism that can do so in an explainable way. In this paper, we fill this gap by introducing Interpretable and Fair Abstaining Classifier IFAC, an algorithm that can reject predictions both based on their uncertainty and their unfairness. By rejecting possibly unfair predictions, our method reduces error and positive decision rate differences across demographic groups of the non-rejected data. Since the unfairness-based rejections are based on an interpretable-by-design method, i.e., rule-based fairness checks and situation testing, we create a transparent process that can empower human decision-makers to review the unfair predictions and make more just decisions for them. This explainable aspect is especially important in light of recent AI regulations, mandating that any high-risk decision task should be overseen by human experts to reduce discrimination risks.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Deferring Concept Bottleneck Models: Learning to Defer Interventions to Inaccurate Experts

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are machine learning models that improve interpretability by grounding their predictions on human-understandable concepts, allowing for targeted interventions in their decision-making process. However, when intervened on, CBMs assume the availability of humans that can identify the need to intervene and always provide correct interventions. Both assumptions are unrealistic and impractical, considering labor costs and human error-proneness. In contrast, Learning to Defer (L2D) extends supervised learning by allowing machine learning models to identify cases where a human is more likely to be correct than the model, thus leading to deferring systems with improved performance. In this work, we gain inspiration from L2D and propose Deferring CBMs (DCBMs), a novel framework that allows CBMs to learn when an intervention is needed. To this end, we model DCBMs as a composition of deferring systems and derive a consistent L2D loss to train them. Moreover, by relying on a CBM architecture, DCBMs can explain why defer occurs on the final task. Our results show that DCBMs achieve high predictive performance and interpretability at the cost of deferring more to humans.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Mathematical Foundation of Interpretable Equivariant Surrogate Models

This paper introduces a rigorous mathematical framework for neural network explainability, and more broadly for the explainability of equivariant operators called Group Equivariant Operators (GEOs) based on Group Equivariant Non-Expansive Operators (GENEOs) transformations. The central concept involves quantifying the distance between GEOs by measuring the non-commutativity of specific diagrams. Additionally, the paper proposes a definition of interpretability of GEOs according to a complexity measure that can be defined according to each user preferences. Moreover, we explore the formal properties of this framework and show how it can be applied in classical machine learning scenarios, like image classification with convolutional neural networks.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Embracing Diversity: A Multi-Perspective Approach with Soft Labels

Prior studies show that adopting the annotation diversity shaped by different backgrounds and life experiences and incorporating them into the model learning, i.e. multi-perspective approach, contribute to the development of more responsible models. Thus, in this paper we propose a new framework for designing and further evaluating perspective-aware models on stance detection task,in which multiple annotators assign stances based on a controversial topic. We also share a new dataset established through obtaining both human and LLM annotations. Results show that the multi-perspective approach yields better classification performance (higher F1-scores), outperforming the traditional approaches that use a single ground-truth, while displaying lower model confidence scores, probably due to the high level of subjectivity of the stance detection task.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Hybrid Retrieval for Hallucination Mitigation in Large Language Models: A Comparative Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in language comprehension and generation but are prone to hallucinations, producing factually incorrect or unsupported outputs. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems address this issue by grounding LLM responses with external knowledge. This study evaluates the relationship between retriever effectiveness and hallucination reduction in LLMs using three retrieval approaches: sparse retrieval based on BM25 keyword search, dense retrieval using semantic search with Sentence Transformers, and a proposed hybrid retrieval module. The hybrid module incorporates query expansion and combines the results of sparse and dense retrievers through a dynamically weighted Reciprocal Rank Fusion score. Using the HaluBench dataset, a benchmark for hallucinations in question answering tasks, we assess retrieval performance with metrics such as mean average precision and normalised discounted cumulative gain, focusing on the relevance of the top three retrieved documents. Results show that the hybrid retriever achieves better relevance scores, outperforming both sparse and dense retrievers. Further evaluation of LLM-generated answers against ground truth using metrics such as accuracy, hallucination rate, and rejection rate reveals that the hybrid retriever achieves the highest accuracy on fails, the lowest hallucination rate, and the lowest rejection rate. These findings highlight the hybrid retriever's ability to enhance retrieval relevance, reduce hallucination rates, and improve LLM reliability, emphasising the importance of advanced retrieval techniques in mitigating hallucinations and improving response accuracy.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Multi-Perspective Stance Detection

Subjective NLP tasks usually rely on human annotations provided by multiple annotators, whose judgments may vary due to their diverse backgrounds and life experiences. Traditional methods often aggregate multiple annotations into a single ground truth, disregarding the diversity in perspectives that arises from annotator disagreement. In this preliminary study, we examine the effect of including multiple annotations on model accuracy in classification. Our methodology investigates the performance of perspective-aware classification models in stance detection task and further inspects if annotator disagreement affects the model confidence. The results show that multi-perspective approach yields better classification performance outperforming the baseline which uses the single label. This entails that designing more inclusive perspective-aware AI models is not only an essential first step in implementing responsible and ethical AI, but it can also achieve superior results than using the traditional approaches.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Learning by Surprise: Adaptive Mitigation of Model Collapse in Large Language Models

As AI-generated content increasingly populates the web, generative AI models are at growing risk of being trained on their own outputs, a process known as AI autophagy. This feedback loop has been shown to induce model collapse, typically characterized by a loss of diversity in generated content. However, existing work offers a limited understanding of this phenomenon and relies on mitigation strategies that assume access to human-authored data. In this paper, we conduct extensive simulations across multiple datasets and LLMs to address key gaps in the study of model collapse. First, we introduce model-intrinsic measures based on next-token probability distributions, showing that model collapse corresponds to an increasing concentration of probability mass on a small set of tokens. Second, we demonstrate that model collapse is also associated with a loss of common sense, as measured by a decline in commonsense inference accuracy. Third, we identify perplexity (a measure of model "surprise") as a key driver of collapse: fine-tuning on the least "surprising" documents leads to more severe degeneration. Building on this insight, we propose a perplexity-based filtering strategy that prioritizes high-surprise documents during fine-tuning. Unlike existing approaches, our method does not require distinguishing between human-authored and AI-generated content. Across datasets and LLM families, this strategy consistently mitigates model collapse, achieving performance comparable to, and in some cases better than, human-data baselines, while substantially reducing the concentration of next-token probabilities. Overall, our results provide a unified, model-centric understanding of model collapse and suggest practical, scalable strategies for training generative AI systems in increasingly synthetic environments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A survey on the impacts of recommender systems on users, items, and human-AI ecosystems

Recommendation systems and assistants (in short, recommenders) influence through online platforms most actions of our daily lives, suggesting items or providing solutions based on users' preferences or requests. This survey systematically reviews, categories, and discusses the impact of recommenders in four human-AI ecosystems -- social media, online retail, urban mapping and generative AI ecosystems. Its scope is to systematise a fast-growing field in which terminologies employed to classify methodologies and outcomes are fragmented and unsystematic. This is a crucial contribution to the literature because terminologies vary substantially across disciplines and ecosystems, hindering comparison and accumulation of knowledge in the field. We follow the customary steps of qualitative systematic review, gathering 154 articles from different disciplines to develop a parsimonious taxonomy of methodologies employed (empirical, simulation, observational, controlled), outcomes observed (concentration, content degradation, discrimination, diversity, echo chamber, filter bubble, homogenisation, polarisation, radicalisation, volume), and their level of analysis (individual, item, and ecosystem). We systematically discuss substantive and methodological commonalities across ecosystems, and highlight potential avenues for future research. The survey is addressed to scholars and practitioners interested in different human-AI ecosystems, policymakers and institutional stakeholders who want to understand better the measurable outcomes of recommenders, and tech companies who wish to obtain a systematic view of the impact of their recommenders.

cs.IR↗