XAI Agents: Transparent, Adaptive AI

• XAI agents are autonomous or semi-autonomous systems integrating explainability into decision-making with symbolic, hybrid, and deep learning frameworks.
• They employ methods like goal-driven autonomy, reactive post-hoc techniques, and formal argumentation to trigger context-aware explanations upon detecting discrepancies.
• These systems utilize multimodal outputs and interactive dialogue protocols to ensure transparent, accountable, and adaptive decision-making in complex, safety-critical domains.

XAI agents are autonomous or semi-autonomous artificial intelligence systems designed to produce, communicate, and adapt their explanations of perceptual, cognitive, or strategic reasoning to human collaborators, stakeholders, or auditors. These agents operate across a spectrum of model architectures—including symbolic, hybrid, and deep learning frameworks—and their central distinguishing feature is the structured integration of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques into both their internal reasoning pipeline and external interaction modalities. The field draws on advances in goal-driven agents, human-machine teaming, formal argumentation, reinforcement learning, cognitive modeling, and interactive dialogue systems, aiming to bridge the gap between complex, black-box decision-making and actionable, transparent machine agency.

1. Core Techniques for Explainable Agents

A taxonomy of XAI agent methods begins by distinguishing deliberative, reactive, and hybrid reasoning strategies, each supporting distinct explanation paradigms (Sado et al., 2020):

• Deliberative agents: Explanations are rooted in symbolic structures such as the agent’s goals, plans, beliefs, and intentions. Techniques include Goal-Driven Autonomy—where expectation failures (expressed as $E = S_\text{expected} - S_\text{actual}$) trigger explanations—and explainable Belief–Desire–Intention (BDI) models that make explicit the mapping between internal cognitive states and actions. Argumentation-based approaches extend BDI by providing multi-stage justifications for goal activation, deliberation, and commitment; see the formal Belief-based Goal Processing (BBGP) model (Morveli-Espinoza et al., 2020).
• Reactive/hybrid agents: Explanations are generated post-hoc or reactively, for example through Attributed Rule Generation (ARG), explainable reinforcement learning (XRL), or user-triggered approaches like APE and PeCoX, which invoke explanations in response to specific events (e.g., goal completion or detected disparity).
• Interactive and Argumentative Agents: Recent developments deploy computational argumentation and multi-agent dialogue frameworks (e.g., Argumentative eXchanges—AXs) in which agents and humans resolve conflicts over decisions via iterative, quantified, bipolar argument frameworks, supporting connectedness, acyclicity, and contributor irrelevance (Rago et al., 2023).

Tabular Summary:

Paradigm	Example Techniques	Explanation Focus
Deliberative	Goal-Driven Autonomy, BDI	Plans, intentions, expectation fail.
Reactive/Hybrid	ARG, XRL, PeCoX	State, decision outcomes (post-hoc)
Argumentation-based	BBGP, AXs	Multi-stage, conflict resolution

These approaches often formalize the explanation trigger as a function of state discrepancy:

$$\delta = f(S_\text{actual}, S_\text{expected}); \qquad \text{if } \delta \neq 0, \text{ trigger explanation.}$$

2. Communication Modalities and Human-in-the-Loop Explanations

Transparency and trust depend not only on robust internal reasoning but on effective communication. Systems employ:

• Multimodal outputs: Visualizations (e.g., CAMs, structured graphs), numerical forms (SHAP scores, attention weights), textual logs/proofs (Prolog or rule logs), and natural language verbs or dialogues (Sado et al., 2020).
• Conversational and interactive agents: Incorporating XAI into natural-language dialogue agents enables iterative, follow-up questioning and clarification. Critical advances include conversational intent mapping to appropriate XAI methods (e.g., mapping “why” to SHAP or DICE explanations); see XAI question-banking systems and template-driven response frameworks (Nguyen et al., 2022, He et al., 29 Jan 2025).
• Iterative/interactive protocols: For high-stakes scenarios, explanations may unfold as multi-turn exchanges—Socratic interrogation (STAR-XAI Protocol), argumentation-based interactions (AXs), or conflict-resolution cycles—ensuring continual validation and alignment between human and agent stances (Guasch et al., 22 Sep 2025, Rago et al., 2023).

3. Formal Models, Argumentation, and Causal Explanation

Several XAI agent architectures embed formal deductive or causal models for traceable, auditable decisions:

• Argumentation Theory: Multi-stage argument frameworks (for activation, evaluation, deliberation, checking) are evaluated using Dung’s formal semantics (preferred, complete, grounded extensions), capturing which arguments justify goal transitions (Morveli-Espinoza et al., 2020). This distinction between partial (summary) and complete (internal structure and conflicts) explanations is central for adaptive explanation depth.
• Causal Modeling: Counterfactual and do-operator-based metrics (e.g., expected outcome $E[O|\text{do}(T)]$, average treatment effect) quantify the impact of specific interventions in both instance-level and global settings (Lakkaraju et al., 7 Aug 2025). Causal models are especially necessary to robustly explain “why not” and to support actionable explanations in reinforcement learning and decision-conscious agents (Druce et al., 2021).
• Optimization-based Explanations: Agents that frame inference as solving optimization problems (learn-to-optimize, L2O) provide transparency via problem statement, constraints, and convergence certificates (pass/warning/fail post-conditions), enabling end-to-end formal validation (Heaton et al., 2022).

4. Adaptive and Continual Learning for Explanation

XAI agents must consistently adapt to new environments, expanded domains, or user feedback without sacrificing interpretability:

• Continual learning: Agents update reasoning models and explanatory schemas in response to new scenarios or anomalies, supporting robustness and adaptation while balancing the risk of cognitive drift into less-interpretable representations (Sado et al., 2020).
• Feedback loops: Iterative, explanation-driven augmentation (e.g., XAI-guided context-aware data augmentation) relies on explanations to identify modifiable, low-importance features, yielding more robust and generalizable models and closing the loop between data, model, explanation, and user correction (Mersha et al., 4 Jun 2025).
• Meta-cognition/Second-Order Agency: Protocols such as STAR-XAI enforce that agents continuously audit, question, and revise their own strategies, updating explicit rulebooks (Consciousness Transfer Packages) in the face of discovered errors—providing a meta-explanatory layer and ensuring resilience against error accumulation (Guasch et al., 22 Sep 2025).

5. Evaluation, Accountability, and Stakeholder Adaptation

Effective XAI agents address not only technical correctness but also stakeholder-specific needs:

• Accountability: Agents generate persistent, auditable “accounts” of their actions (records of the deliberation leading to predictions), supporting both individual agency and collaborative decision-making in domains such as medical screening or air traffic control (Procter et al., 2020).
• Targeted, stakeholder-aware explanations: Holistic-XAI (H-XAI) frameworks support multi-level explanation tuned to the user’s regulatory, personal, or operational goals—combining classical post-hoc and causal/robustness-driven metrics (e.g., SHAP, counterfactuals, ATE, WRS) (Lakkaraju et al., 7 Aug 2025). Interactive interfaces allow users to pose, test, and refine queries, validating explanations against personalized or group-level baselines.
• Resilience against adversarial threats: Automated assessment pipelines (cloud-based XAI services) evaluate model performance, robustness, explanation deviation, and resilience under adversarial perturbations—quantifying trustworthiness for safety-critical deployments (Wang et al., 22 Jan 2024).
• Critical perspectives: Studies caution that natural or conversational explanations (especially those delivered via LLM-based chat agents) may induce the "illusion of explanatory depth," leading to overreliance unless calibrated with mechanisms for uncertainty, self-checking, and critical feedback (He et al., 29 Jan 2025).

6. Comparative Analysis: Goal-Driven vs. Data-Driven XAI Agents

The distinction between goal-driven (model-based) and data-driven (model-agnostic) XAI agents remains foundational:

• Model structure: Goal-driven agents explicitly represent the reasoning chain (beliefs, goals, plans, and intentions), providing inherently traceable links from perception to action. Data-driven systems, often based on deep networks, explain decisions by post-hoc analysis of feature contributions or attention, sometimes at the cost of semantic clarity (Sado et al., 2020).
• Explanation depth and granularity: Goal-driven approaches offer fine-grained, narrative or argument-based justifications, aligning with human modes of accountability. Data-driven approaches are generally limited to feature attribution or statistical correlation, which can impede interpretability in unconstrained environments.
• Communication and adaptability: Both agent types now employ similar communication modalities (visual, textual, numerical, conversational). However, the ease of extending explanations to new tasks, explaining anomalies, or counterfactual reasoning more robustly arises in explicitly structured, goal-driven agents.

7. Roadmap, Open Challenges, and Emerging Directions

Current research emphasizes the integration of hybrid and multi-method frameworks, the development of standard evaluation protocols, and the expansion of XAI principles beyond technical audiences:

• Hybrid agents: Combining reactive, deliberative, and argumentative techniques is recommended for flexible, context-aware explanation (Sado et al., 2020).
• Standardization and benchmarking: There is a need for domain-independent taxonomies, quantitative metrics (explanation quality, robustness, resilience), and reproducible evaluation pipelines (Wang et al., 22 Jan 2024, Longo et al., 2023).
• Second-order agency and self-repair: Protocols such as STAR-XAI indicate a new direction in which agents are expected not just to explain but to self-diagnose, self-correct, and update their reasoning—supporting transparency and trust in dynamic, open-ended tasks (Guasch et al., 22 Sep 2025).
• Human-centered and stakeholder-driven explanation: Holistic XAI agents extend transparency and understanding to non-developer audiences, including regulators, end-users, and decision-makers—with interactive, hypothesis-testing workflows and quantitative audit trails (Lakkaraju et al., 7 Aug 2025).
• Outstanding challenges: The field recognizes difficulties in evaluating and falsifying explanations, addressing societal power imbalances (e.g., data rights, bias), and achieving truly robust and multi-modal explainability for systems at the scale of contemporary LLMs and generative models (Longo et al., 2023).

---

In summary, XAI agents represent a convergence of transparent, context-sensitive internal reasoning architectures, multimodal and interactive explanation delivery, stakeholder accountability mechanisms, and adaptive learning protocols. Their development is grounded in formal models of cognitive processing, causal inference, argumentation, and optimization, and is continually refined through practical deployment in safety-critical and collaborative domains. The research direction is increasingly oriented toward unified, human-centered frameworks capable of multi-level explanation, self-audit, and participatory adaptation in line with evolving technical and societal demands.