arXiv AI

XAI-Arena: Can LLMs Assess the Quality of XAI Explanations?

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 AI
Jul 17

Towards a Unified Multidimensional Explainability Metric: Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Models

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 Computation and Language
Sep 7

From Plausible to Actionable: A Position on LLM Self-Explanations

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.

By Elize Herrewijnen, Benedetta Muscato, Gizem Gezici, Fosca Giannotti
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Explaining AI Agents Through Execution Traces

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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 9

Generative Explainability for Next-Generation Networks: LLM-Augmented XAI with Mutual Feature Interactions

As artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models become integral to network operations, their lack of transparency poses a significant barrier to operator trust. Existing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques often fail to bridge this gap for non-specialists, producing technical outputs that are difficult to translate into actionable insights.

arXiv AI
Jul 17

Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods

arXiv:2607. 14123v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite the proliferation of Explainable AI (XAI) techniques -- from feature attributions to sparse autoencoders -- explanations rarely influence real-world workflows.

By Michal Moshkovitz, Suraj Srinivas, Lesia Semenova, Nave Frost, Cyrus Rashtchian, Valentyn Boreiko, Shichang Zhang, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Cynthia Rudin, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
arXiv AI
Aug 20

The Lifecycle of LLM-as-a-Judge for Large-Scale Recommendation Explanations

The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.

By Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, Ishan Gupta, Lars Olds, Claire Campbell, David Fagnan, Veli Balin, Rohan Gosain, Louis Garcia, Minsu Jang
arXiv AI
Sep 3

The Utility of LLMs in Recommender Systems Explanation Evaluation

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.

By Kathrin Wardatzky, Oana Inel, Luca Rossetto, Abraham Bernstein
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

Attribute-Based Activation Steering of LLMs for Group-Specific Explanation Generation

The paper proposes a method to steer large language models (LLMs) to generate explanations tailored to specific target groups. It first identifies group-specific attributes related to explanatory style and knowledge, then uses activation engineering to compute steering vectors that are added to the LLM’s internal activations during inference. Experiments show that this attribute-based steering improves specificity and factuality of explanations compared to prompting and existing steering baselines, and a human study confirms better tailoring to target groups.

By Leandra Fichtel, Janek Prange, Henning Wachsmuth