Agentic Personas for Adaptive Scientific Explanations with Knowledge Graphs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21846v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 11:35:40 GMT
• Title: Agentic Personas for Adaptive Scientific Explanations with Knowledge Graphs
• Abstract summary: We present a reinforcement learning approach for scientific explanation generation that incorporates agentic personas.<n>Results show that persona-driven explanations match state-of-the-art predictive performance.<n>Agentic personas enable scalable adaptive explainability for AI systems in complex and high-stakes domains.
• Score: 0.45880283710344066
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts. Knowledge graph-based explanations, despite their capacity for grounded, path-based reasoning, inherit this limitation. In complex domains such as scientific discovery, this assumption fails to capture the diversity of cognitive strategies and epistemic stances among experts, preventing explanations that foster deeper understanding and informed decision-making. However, the scarcity of human experts limits the use of direct human feedback to produce adaptive explanations. We present a reinforcement learning approach for scientific explanation generation that incorporates agentic personas, structured representations of expert reasoning strategies, that guide the explanation agent towards specific epistemic preferences. In an evaluation of knowledge graph-based explanations for drug discovery, we tested two personas that capture distinct epistemic stances derived from expert feedback. Results show that persona-driven explanations match state-of-the-art predictive performance while persona preferences closely align with those of their corresponding experts. Adaptive explanations were consistently preferred over non-adaptive baselines (n = 22), and persona-based training reduces feedback requirements by two orders of magnitude. These findings demonstrate how agentic personas enable scalable adaptive explainability for AI systems in complex and high-stakes domains.

Related papers

• Human-centered explanation does not fit all: The interplay of sociotechnical, cognitive, and individual factors in the effect AI explanations in algorithmic decision-making [23.796440203174342]
  This study focuses on the cognitive dimensions of explanation evaluation.<n>We evaluate six explanations with different contrastive strategies and information selectivity.<n>We call for a nuanced view of explanation strategies, with implications for designing AI interfaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T22:42:53Z)
• XForecast: Evaluating Natural Language Explanations for Time Series Forecasting [72.57427992446698]
  Time series forecasting aids decision-making, especially for stakeholders who rely on accurate predictions. Traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods, which underline feature or temporal importance, often require expert knowledge. evaluating forecast NLEs is difficult due to the complex causal relationships in time series data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:16:39Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Evaluation of Human-Understandability of Global Model Explanations using Decision Tree [8.263545324859969]
  We generate model explanations that are narrative, patient-specific and global. We find a strong individual preference for a specific type of explanation. This guides the design of health informatics systems that are both trustworthy and actionable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T16:30:14Z)
• Explaining Explainability: Towards Deeper Actionable Insights into Deep Learning through Second-order Explainability [70.60433013657693]
  Second-order explainable AI (SOXAI) was recently proposed to extend explainable AI (XAI) from the instance level to the dataset level. We demonstrate for the first time, via example classification and segmentation cases, that eliminating irrelevant concepts from the training set based on actionable insights from SOXAI can enhance a model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T23:24:01Z)
• Testing the effectiveness of saliency-based explainability in NLP using randomized survey-based experiments [0.6091702876917281]
  A lot of work in Explainable AI has aimed to devise explanation methods that give humans insights into the workings and predictions of NLP models. Innate human tendencies and biases can handicap the understanding of these explanations in humans. We designed a randomized survey-based experiment to understand the effectiveness of saliency-based Post-hoc explainability methods in Natural Language Processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T08:49:01Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Experiential Explanations for Reinforcement Learning [18.039927414134088]
  Reinforcement learning systems can be complex and non-interpretable.<n>We propose a technique Experiential Explanations to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-10T14:27:53Z)
• Features of Explainability: How users understand counterfactual and causal explanations for categorical and continuous features in XAI [10.151828072611428]
  Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used to address interpretability, recourse, and bias in AI decisions. We tested the effects of counterfactual and causal explanations on the objective accuracy of users predictions. We also found that users understand explanations referring to categorical features more readily than those referring to continuous features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T15:01:09Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• 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.