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.
By Yanfei Hu Fleischhauer, Alona Zharova, Nadja Klein, Stefan Feuerriegel
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.
By Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau, Francesco Spinnato, Riccardo Guidotti
arXiv:2607. 22045v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome.
By Oleksii Furman, {\L}ukasz Lenkiewicz, Marcel Musia{\l}ek, Maciej Zi\k{e}ba
arXiv:2607. 14315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we present a comprehensive framework for assessing the explainability of various XAI methods, such as LIME and SHAP, across multiple datasets and machine learning models, with the ultimate goal of creating a unified multidimensional explainability score.
By Georgios Makridis, Georgios Fatouros, Athanasios Kiourtis, Dimitrios Kotios, Vasileios Koukos, Dimosthenis Kyriazis, Jonh Soldatos
arXiv:2609.06063v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI Agents are increasingly deployed in real-world settings, where they interact with external tools and make sequential decisions with limited human ov...
By Vittoria Vineis, Fabiano Veglianti, Lorenzo Antonelli, Claudia Di Carlo, Matteo Silvestri, Gabriele Tolomei
arXiv:2607. 09502v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Explaining machine-learning models is increasingly important for decision-making and consumer trust, yet it is widely believed to come at a cost: existing Explainable AI (XAI) methods suffer from a persistent accuracy-explainability trade-off.
By Pan Li
The paper introduces Explanation-Driven Feature Acquisition (EDFA), a method that jointly optimizes algorithmic recourse and feature acquisition by selecting features based on explanatory value per unit cost. Using Markov Blanket theory, EDFA unifies various explanation types and provides distribution‑free validity guarantees for recourse derived from partial information. Experiments on seven datasets show that EDFA requires fewer features than existing active feature acquisition baselines while maintaining accuracy and producing more actionable recourse.
By Vinura Galwaduge, Jagath Samarabandu
The paper introduces a framework that uses large language models (LLMs) to generate natural‑language narratives explaining cross‑sectional stock return predictions. It combines temporal Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) from an XGBoost model with historical regime analogs to provide context. A controlled study shows that progressively externalizing numerical and relational reasoning improves evidence faithfulness and accuracy, while historical analogs boost human‑rated usefulness.
By Sujung Kim, Seung Hwan Cho, Sangjin Park, Young-Min Kim
Counterfactual (CF) explanations identify changes that alter an input's classification. While existing methods produce realistic and low-cost CFs, they often fail to ensure feasibility, by suggesting...
iFlip is an iterative refinement method for generating counterfactual examples using large language models. It incorporates three feedback types—model confidence, feature attribution, and natural language—to guide successive edits. Experiments show iFlip outperforms five state‑of‑the‑art baselines, achieving a 57.8% higher validity rate and improving model performance through counterfactual data augmentation.
By Yilong Wang, Qianli Wang, Nils Feldhus
arXiv:2607. 29614v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of deep learning models in high-risk domains has intensified the need for trustworthy Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI).
By Christian Oliva, Luis F. Lago-Fern\'andez
The paper introduces a hypothesis‑testing framework that embeds feature importance methods (FIMs) within a Weight of Evidence (WoE) analysis. By quantifying how strongly observed evidence supports a given hypothesis—whether from domain knowledge, ground truth, or the FIM itself—the approach evaluates FIM alignment and variability. The authors provide theoretical links between WoE and attribution variance and demonstrate the method on LIME and SHAP explanations across varied reference hypotheses.
By Eddie Conti, Claudio Daka, \'Alvaro Parafita, Antonio L. Alfeo, Axel Brando, Mario G. C. A. Cimino