The paper proposes an information‑flow perspective on explainability, arguing that exposing reasons for observed effects is a positive flow of information that must be specified and verified. It introduces an epistemic temporal logic with counterfactual causes to formalize the requirement that agents gain knowledge about why an effect occurred, and presents an algorithm for checking finite‑state models against these specifications. A prototype implementation is evaluated on benchmarks, demonstrating the ability to distinguish explainable from unexplainable systems and to incorporate privacy constraints.
arXiv:2607. 21209v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the field of Artificial Intelligence, an agent is a system which is able to autonomously make decisions in order to reach a desired goal.
arXiv:2606. 16786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short.
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...
arXiv:2607. 13045v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a key paradigm for privacy-preserving collaborative model training across distributed and heterogeneous data sources.
arXiv:2609.14003v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Personal AI agents built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly given access to a user's private data and communications in order to provid...
arXiv:2608.21803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, explainable AI (XAI) methods like SHAP and LIME have become es...
Explainable AI (XAI) research has produced a plethora of explanation techniques, yet user studies repeatedly show that available explanations are not effective in practice. We argue that, given the si...
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:2606. 14838v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs.
arXiv:2608.22356v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) research has produced a plethora of explanation techniques, yet user studies repeatedly show that available explanations are not e...
arXiv:2607. 05397v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent systems increasingly execute rather than advise.
arXiv:2607. 21210v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing approaches to multi-agent belief combination have established mature foundations for combining uncertain beliefs under common assumptions: consensus methods use iterative averaging, logic-based methods resolve conflicting knowledge bases, and epistemic logic analyzes agents' information states.