Katya Tentori

Leonardo Bertolazzi, Katya Tentori, Raffaella Bernardi

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in scientific tasks. Yet whether these systems can effectively engage in forms of inductive reasoning relevant to scientific discovery remains an open question. In this work, we introduce FALSIFYBENCH, an evaluation framework for hypothesis-driven reasoning inspired by the classic Wason 2-4-6 task, in which agents must discover hidden semantic properties by iteratively proposing examples and receiving feedback. This task captures key elements of scientific reasoning: hypothesis generation, evidence gathering, and belief revision in response to both confirming and disconfirming evidence. Our evaluation of 12 LLMs across model families and scales shows that reasoning models are generally stronger scientific reasoners than instruction-tuned models, although no model comes close to optimal performance. The primary driver of success is the capacity for negative testing: models that actively seek to falsify their hypotheses consistently outperform those that primarily seek confirmation. Moreover, a fine-grained turn-level analysis, neglected in previous work, reveals that failure is tied to identifiable patterns in how models navigate the hypothesis space.

Andrea Bontempelli, Stefano Teso, Katya Tentori et al.

Part-prototype Networks (ProtoPNets) are concept-based classifiers designed to achieve the same performance as black-box models without compromising transparency. ProtoPNets compute predictions based on similarity to class-specific part-prototypes learned to recognize parts of training examples, making it easy to faithfully determine what examples are responsible for any target prediction and why. However, like other models, they are prone to picking up confounders and shortcuts from the data, thus suffering from compromised prediction accuracy and limited generalization. We propose ProtoPDebug, an effective concept-level debugger for ProtoPNets in which a human supervisor, guided by the model's explanations, supplies feedback in the form of what part-prototypes must be forgotten or kept, and the model is fine-tuned to align with this supervision. Our experimental evaluation shows that ProtoPDebug outperforms state-of-the-art debuggers for a fraction of the annotation cost. An online experiment with laypeople confirms the simplicity of the feedback requested to the users and the effectiveness of the collected feedback for learning confounder-free part-prototypes. ProtoPDebug is a promising tool for trustworthy interactive learning in critical applications, as suggested by a preliminary evaluation on a medical decision making task.

Dario Pesenti, Alessandro Bogani, Katya Tentori et al.

Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations. In a nutshell, XIL algorithms select a number of items on which an AI model made a decision (e.g. images and their tags) and present them to users, together with corresponding explanations (e.g. image regions that drive the model's decision). Then, users supply corrective feedback for the explanations, which the algorithm uses to improve the model. Despite showing promise in debugging tasks, recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback. We argue that these studies are not entirely conclusive, as the experimental designs and tasks employed differ substantially from common XIL use cases, complicating interpretation. To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies (n = 713 total) designed to mimic common XIL tasks. Specifically, we assessed order effects both within and between debugging sessions by manipulating the order in which correct and wrong explanations are presented to participants. Order effects had a limited, through significant impact on users' agreement with the model (i.e., a behavioral measure of their trust), and only when examined withing debugging sessions, not between them. The quality of users' feedback was generally satisfactory, with order effects exerting only a small and inconsistent influence in both experiments. Overall, our findings suggest that order effects do not pose a significant issue for the successful employment of XIL approaches. More broadly, our work contributes to the ongoing efforts for understanding human factors in AI.

Seyedehdelaram Esfahani, Giovanni De Toni, Bruno Lepri et al.

Algorithmic Recourse aims to provide actionable explanations, or recourse plans, to overturn potentially unfavourable decisions taken by automated machine learning models. In this paper, we propose an interaction paradigm based on a guided interaction pattern aimed at both eliciting the users' preferences and heading them toward effective recourse interventions. In a fictional task of money lending, we compare this approach with an exploratory interaction pattern based on a combination of alternative plans and the possibility of freely changing the configurations by the users themselves. Our results suggest that users may recognize that the guided interaction paradigm improves efficiency. However, they also feel less freedom to experiment with "what-if" scenarios. Nevertheless, the time spent on the purely exploratory interface tends to be perceived as a lack of efficiency, which reduces attractiveness, perspicuity, and dependability. Conversely, for the guided interface, more time on the interface seems to increase its attractiveness, perspicuity, and dependability while not impacting the perceived efficiency. That might suggest that this type of interfaces should combine these two approaches by trying to support exploratory behavior while gently pushing toward a guided effective solution.