arXiv:2512. 21066v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) reveals how explanatory variables relate to a response variable, yet communicating XAI outputs to laypersons remains difficult, limiting trust in AI-based predictions.
arXiv:2606. 28992v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong abilities in opendomain question answering, information extraction, and text generation.
arXiv:2506. 04571v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agriculture is undergoing a major transformation driven by artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and knowledge representation technologies.
XAI-Arena proposes using large language models (LLMs) as judges to evaluate the quality of explainable AI (XAI) explanations, aiming for reproducibility, scalability, and multidimensional assessment. The framework assesses dimensions such as simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability across different datasets, models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive correlation between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho = .693, p < .001), supporting the viability of LLM-based evaluations.
arXiv:2602. 06841v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Over the last decade, Explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure.
The paper introduces the Hybrid Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework (H$^{2}$MAF), which fuses decision-level outputs from EfficientNet-B3 and ConvNeXt-Tiny with semantic arbitration by multimodal large language models Gemma 4 E4B and Qwen3.5 4B to produce explainable plant disease diagnoses. Evaluated on 14,364 images from PlantDoc and two Cornell robotic field datasets, the framework achieves up to 99.3% accuracy, with Gemma improving PlantDoc accuracy from 63.9% to 68.5% and demonstrating low critical‑risk error. The results highlight the potential of MLLM arbitration for reliable, explainable agricultural AI under real‑world field conditions.
The paper introduces a synthetic ground‑truth framework for evaluating explainable AI (XAI) methods, addressing the lack of reliable evaluation procedures. By using controlled interventions to create datasets where the importance of input components is known, the framework generates ground‑truth explanations that align with the model’s actual decision process. The authors apply this approach to binary images, tabular data, and time series, and find that nine popular XAI methods exhibit significant limitations, underscoring the need for intervention‑based benchmarks.
arXiv:2608. 10766v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision.
arXiv:2603. 25251v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) methods are commonly evaluated using functional correctness metrics, sometimes termed faithfulness or fidelity, which estimate how closely an explanation reflects the model's reasoning.
The paper introduces SAEScientist-Bench, a benchmark that tests whether AI agents can autonomously conduct mechanistic interpretability research using Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs). Agents are tasked with designing contrastive probes and navigating a large feature dictionary in Gemma-2-9B-IT to identify optimal features for a target concept, with performance measured against expert-curated references on activation rank, concept selectivity, and causal steering. Results show that while frontier agents can discover features and outperform controls, they still lag behind expert baselines, especially in causal steering, highlighting both the potential and current limitations of closed-loop autonomous AI research.
arXiv:2606. 09556v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist agents are often evaluated as if capability were mainly a function of model quality, prompting, or reasoning scaffolds.
The paper discusses how Large Language Models can produce natural language self‑explanations that appear plausible but may not accurately reflect the model’s reasoning. It critiques current evaluation methods for such explanations and offers practical guidelines to assess their plausibility and faithfulness. Additionally, it argues that evaluation should also consider the actionability of these explanations, showing how they can aid decision‑making for various stakeholders.
arXiv:2509. 01924v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agricultural decision-making faces a dual challenge: sustaining high yields to meet global food security needs while reducing the environmental impacts of input use, including fertilizer losses and other agrochemical applications such as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.