arXiv Machine Learning

Interpretable and Fair Generalized Additive Neural Networks via Multi-objective Learning

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 AI
Sep 23

Artificial Neural Networks as Surrogate Models in Black Box Optimization

arXiv:2609.22329v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Black-Box Optimization (BBO) is often applied in several engineering fields and can utilize an advancement of numerical measure- ments and simulation...

By Md Khadimul Islam Zim (Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Computer Science, Prague, Czech Republic), Martin Hole\v{n}a (Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Computer Science, Prague, Czech Republic)
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

ReFIne: A Framework for Trustworthy Large Reasoning Models with Reliability, Faithfulness, and Interpretability

ReFIne is a training framework that augments large reasoning models with three trustworthiness properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. It combines supervised fine‑tuning with GRPO to produce structured, tag‑based reasoning traces, explicitly disclose decisive information, and provide self‑assessments of soundness and confidence. Applied to Qwen3 models, ReFIne improves interpretability by 44.0 %, faithfulness by 18.8 %, and reliability by 42.4 % on mathematical benchmarks.

By Chung-En Sun, Ge Yan, Akshay Kulkarni, Tsui-Wei Weng
arXiv AI
6d ago

A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods

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