The paper argues that explainable AI (XAI) tools, intended to increase trust in machine learning models, often fail to do so and instead foster overreliance on incorrect predictions. It attributes this failure to the unfaithfulness of XAI methods, which oversimplify model internals and misalign explanations with the actual model behavior. The authors identify five major shortcomings in current faithfulness metrics and propose four research directions to improve their reliability.
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 introduces Ra‑NEM, a method that optimizes the area under insertion and deletion curves to improve the faithfulness of feature importance attributions in machine learning models. By deriving an objective function from faithfulness and approximating its gradient, the authors link insertion curves to top‑k feature selection, enabling a loss function that measures attribution quality. Ra‑NEM, integrated with the neural explanation mask framework, works with any differentiable model, yielding accurate, robust, and fast attributions that outperform existing algorithms on multiple XAI metrics.
arXiv:2602.02639v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM self-explanations are often presented as a promising tool for AI oversight, yet their faithfulness to the model's true reasoning process...
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: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...
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. 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).
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.
arXiv:2606. 06056v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multiple machine learning models can achieve near-equivalent predictive performance on the same task, yet provide divergent feature-based explanations.
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.
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.
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.