Human-Centered Explainability in AI-Enhanced UI Security Interfaces: Designing Trustworthy Copilots for Cybersecurity Analysts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22653v1
• Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:18:20 GMT
• Title: Human-Centered Explainability in AI-Enhanced UI Security Interfaces: Designing Trustworthy Copilots for Cybersecurity Analysts
• Authors: Mona Rajhans,
• Abstract summary: We present a mixed-methods study of explanation design strategies in AI-driven security dashboards.<n>Our findings show that explanation style significantly affects user trust calibration, decision accuracy, and cognitive load.<n>This work advances the design of human-centered AI tools in cybersecurity and provides broader implications for explainability in other high-stakes domains.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) copilots are increasingly integrated into enterprise cybersecurity platforms to assist analysts in threat detection, triage, and remediation. However, the effectiveness of these systems depends not only on the accuracy of underlying models but also on the degree to which users can understand and trust their outputs. Existing research on algorithmic explainability has largely focused on model internals, while little attention has been given to how explanations should be surfaced in user interfaces for high-stakes decision-making contexts [8], [5], [6]. We present a mixed-methods study of explanation design strategies in AI-driven security dashboards. Through a taxonomy of explanation styles and a controlled user study with security practitioners, we compare natural language rationales, confidence visualizations, counterfactual explanations, and hybrid approaches. Our findings show that explanation style significantly affects user trust calibration, decision accuracy, and cognitive load. We contribute (1) empirical evidence on the usability of explanation interfaces for security copilots, (2) design guidelines for integrating explainability into enterprise UIs, and (3) a framework for aligning explanation strategies with analyst needs in security operations centers (SOCs). This work advances the design of human-centered AI tools in cybersecurity and provides broader implications for explainability in other high-stakes domains.

Related papers

• Detecting Cybersecurity Threats by Integrating Explainable AI with SHAP Interpretability and Strategic Data Sampling [0.0]
  The framework addresses three fundamental challenges in deploying AI for threat detection.<n>Our approach maintains detection efficacy while reducing computational overhead.<n>It provides a robust foundation for deploying trustworthy AI systems in security operations centers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-22T08:01:14Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• L-XAIDS: A LIME-based eXplainable AI framework for Intrusion Detection Systems [4.711103317066182]
  Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and their applications in critical industries have led to a surge in research in explainability in AI.<n>This paper proposes a framework to give an explanation for Intrusion Detection Systems decision making.<n>Our framework is able to achieve percent accuracy in classifying attack behaviour on UNSW-NB15 dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T07:47:39Z)
• Towards Trustworthy GUI Agents: A Survey [64.6445117343499]
  This survey examines the trustworthiness of GUI agents in five critical dimensions.<n>We identify major challenges such as vulnerability to adversarial attacks, cascading failure modes in sequential decision-making.<n>As GUI agents become more widespread, establishing robust safety standards and responsible development practices is essential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T13:26:00Z)
• Too Much to Trust? Measuring the Security and Cognitive Impacts of Explainability in AI-Driven SOCs [0.6990493129893112]
  Explainable AI (XAI) holds significant promise for enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of AI-driven threat detection.<n>This study re-evaluates current explanation methods within security contexts and demonstrates that role-aware, context-rich XAI designs aligned with SOC can substantially improve practical utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T21:39:15Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• Computational Safety for Generative AI: A Signal Processing Perspective [65.268245109828]
  computational safety is a mathematical framework that enables the quantitative assessment, formulation, and study of safety challenges in GenAI.<n>We show how sensitivity analysis and loss landscape analysis can be used to detect malicious prompts with jailbreak attempts.<n>We discuss key open research challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of signal processing in computational AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:26:50Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context.<n>We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• Enhancing Trust in Autonomous Agents: An Architecture for Accountability and Explainability through Blockchain and Large Language Models [0.3495246564946556]
  This work presents an accountability and explainability architecture implemented for ROS-based mobile robots.<n>The proposed solution consists of two main components. Firstly, a black box-like element to provide accountability, featuring anti-tampering properties achieved through blockchain technology.<n> Secondly, a component in charge of generating natural language explanations by harnessing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) over the data contained within the previously mentioned black box.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T16:57:18Z)
• Explainable Intrusion Detection Systems (X-IDS): A Survey of Current Methods, Challenges, and Opportunities [0.0]
  Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) have received widespread adoption due to their ability to handle vast amounts of data with a high prediction accuracy. IDSs designed using Deep Learning (DL) techniques are often treated as black box models and do not provide a justification for their predictions. This survey reviews the state-of-the-art in explainable AI (XAI) for IDS, its current challenges, and discusses how these challenges span to the design of an X-IDS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T14:31:46Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.