arXiv:2501. 05795v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In recent years, explainability in machine learning has gained importance.
arXiv:2606. 18418v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The increasing use of machine learning algorithms in social applications has raised concerns about fairness and transparency, leading to the development of counterfactual explanations.
Counterfactual (CF) explanations identify changes that alter an input's classification. While existing methods produce realistic and low-cost CFs, they often fail to ensure feasibility, by suggesting...
arXiv:2607. 22045v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome.
FCx is a new algorithm that generates counterfactual explanations while explicitly enforcing feasibility constraints. It uses a modified Variational Autoencoder with a multi‑factor loss to produce realistic, low‑cost counterfactuals that satisfy both hard constraints supplied by users and soft constraints inferred via causal inference. Experiments on four public datasets demonstrate that FCx matches state‑of‑the‑art performance across multiple metrics while guaranteeing feasibility.
arXiv:2607. 01306v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations explain machine learning predictions by identifying minimal input changes that would alter a model's decision.
arXiv:2607. 01610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanation (CE) is widely used to enhance the interpretability of machine learning models and support data-driven decision-making based on model predictions.
arXiv:2609.05946v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Interpretability and fairness are two of the most emphasized dimensions in trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI). Various explainable AI methods hav...
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: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.
arXiv:2606. 10347v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine learning is increasingly used in critical domains, where both predictions and their associated confidence levels influence important decisions.
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.
arXiv:2605. 02640v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) models and foundation models (FMs), are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a central challenge.