Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Agentic Personas for Adaptive Scientific Explanations with Knowledge Graphs

Susana Nunes, Tiago Guerreiro, Catia Pesquita · Mar 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

partial

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

AI explanation methods often assume a static user model, producing non-adaptive explanations regardless of expert goals, reasoning strategies, or decision contexts.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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…
  • In an evaluation of knowledge graph-based explanations for drug discovery, we tested two personas that capture distinct epistemic stances derived from expert feedback.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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…

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.