Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

David Lagnado

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

3 papers
1 author row

Possible papers

3

CLeaR Conference 2026 Conference Paper

Causal and Active Learning-Based Counterfactual Chest X-ray Generation for Supporting Clinical Decision-Making in Lung Disease

  • Yifei Zhu
  • Greta Mohr
  • Lei Zhang
  • Christopher Sainsbury
  • Feng Dong
  • John D Maclay
  • David J Lowe
  • David Lagnado

Lung diseases such as lung cancer are major contributors to global morbidity, requiring accurate diagnostic decisions for optimal patient outcomes. While deep learning has advanced medical imaging, the lack of causal inference limits its clinical utility. This study proposes a causal generative framework for counterfactual analysis of Chest X-rays, guided by expert model supervision to ensure clinical plausibility. To solve data imbalance and enhance robustness, we introduce a recurrent active learning strategy that utilises "forgetting rates" to select informative samples. Experimental results demonstrate effectiveness improvements of 9. 25% on the MIMIC dataset and 13. 40% on ChestXray8. Furthermore, two-stage human expert evaluations confirm that the model generates highly realistic synthetic data that maintains a clinical heavy-tailed distribution. These high-quality counterfactuals not only improve diagnostic accuracy but also facilitate confidence calibration for clinicians through interpretable evidence. Our findings demonstrate that integrating causal modeling with expert supervision and active learning provides a robust, clinically meaningful tool for pulmonary diagnostic decision-making.

AIJ Journal 2021 Journal Article

Argumentative explanations for interactive recommendations

  • Antonio Rago
  • Oana Cocarascu
  • Christos Bechlivanidis
  • David Lagnado
  • Francesca Toni

A significant challenge for recommender systems (RSs), and in fact for AI systems in general, is the systematic definition of explanations for outputs in such a way that both the explanations and the systems themselves are able to adapt to their human users' needs. In this paper we propose an RS hosting a vast repertoire of explanations, which are customisable to users in their content and format, and thus able to adapt to users' explanatory requirements, while being reasonably effective (proven empirically). Our RS is built on a graphical chassis, allowing the extraction of argumentation scaffolding, from which diverse and varied argumentative explanations for recommendations can be obtained. These recommendations are interactive because they can be questioned by users and they support adaptive feedback mechanisms designed to allow the RS to self-improve (proven theoretically). Finally, we undertake user studies in which we vary the characteristics of the argumentative explanations, showing users' general preferences for more information, but also that their tastes are diverse, thus highlighting the need for our adaptable RS.

AILAW Journal 2019 Journal Article

Modelling competing legal arguments using Bayesian model comparison and averaging

  • Martin Neil
  • Norman Fenton
  • David Lagnado
  • Richard David Gill

Abstract Bayesian models of legal arguments generally aim to produce a single integrated model, combining each of the legal arguments under consideration. This combined approach implicitly assumes that variables and their relationships can be represented without any contradiction or misalignment, and in a way that makes sense with respect to the competing argument narratives. This paper describes a novel approach to compare and ‘average’ Bayesian models of legal arguments that have been built independently and with no attempt to make them consistent in terms of variables, causal assumptions or parameterization. The approach involves assessing whether competing models of legal arguments are explained or predict facts uncovered before or during the trial process. Those models that are more heavily disconfirmed by the facts are given lower weight, as model plausibility measures, in the Bayesian model comparison and averaging framework adopted. In this way a plurality of arguments is allowed yet a single judgement based on all arguments is possible and rational.

v2026.09.13