The paper argues that explainable AI for computer vision has focused too much on developing interpretability methods rather than assessing how interpretable the models themselves are. It proposes a shift toward model-centric evaluation, using existing tools to compare what different models represent and compute, and emphasizes the need to measure whether humans can truly understand these models. The authors review the current toolbox, survey limited model comparison work, draw parallels to systems neuroscience, and outline a future agenda for model-focused XAI.
arXiv:2606. 26523v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We develop a framework for interpreting AI systems as agents, drawing on the philosophical tradition of radical interpretation and the tools of mechanistic interpretability.
arXiv:2606. 12289v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Artificial Intelligence models grow in complexity, interpretability has become an indispensable tool for understanding, debugging, and controlling their computations.
arXiv:2606. 26228v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We review the concepts of interpretability and explainability as they apply to machine learning in physics.
arXiv:2605. 27618v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite the wide use of explainability techniques to attempt to understand the behavior of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the generated explanations may not always be reliable.
arXiv:2606. 01189v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue that the AI community is now ready to move beyond benchmarking and consolidate scattered efforts in model analysis into a systematic discipline, a direction we term Model Science.
arXiv:2205. 04599v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for trustworthy AI in healthcare, yet many existing methods rely on technical explanations that are difficult for clinicians and patients to interpret.
arXiv:2607. 09649v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Concept-based explainable artificial intelligence (AI) can make model reasoning more human-understandable, but concept-level outputs are not automatically trustworthy.
arXiv:2606. 06664v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite high accuracy, Vision Transformer (ViT) predictions can be driven by spurious cues, raising the need to understand their inner workings before safe deployment.
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).
The paper introduces a formal auditing framework to evaluate the robustness and fidelity of post‑hoc explainers such as SHAP and LIME. It defines a Trust Score that combines how stable an explanation is under small input perturbations with how well the highlighted features actually influence the model’s prediction. Experiments on a Madagascar malnutrition dataset show that even highly accurate models can produce unreliable explanations, and that fidelity scores degrade when models overfit.
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.
The paper argues that prediction‑based certifications—such as accuracy, calibration, and conformal coverage—are insufficient to guarantee trustworthy AI. It proves a separation theorem showing that a model can appear reliable under all prediction‑side certificates yet differ arbitrarily in explanation fidelity and deployment behaviour. The authors propose a competence envelope framework that combines both prediction and explanation certification to detect such hidden failures.