The paper introduces a unified evaluation protocol for robust counterfactual explanations (CFE), testing six robust methods and two baselines across four tabular datasets under eight types of model change. It shows that robustness scores vary by change type and that methods designed for one change family may not transfer to others, with RobX performing most consistently. The study emphasizes the need for a common protocol that defines model changes, measures their impact, and separates generation performance from robustness.
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.
arXiv:2609.08216v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems built on large language models fail in two persistent ways that scaling does not fix: they break under distribution shift, and they...
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.
arXiv:2601. 14590v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide human-centric interpretability by identifying the minimal, actionable changes required to alter a machine learning model's prediction.
arXiv:2607. 12058v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Given a vulnerability-fixing commit, trigger localization asks which specific statement turns the vulnerable program state into a concrete unsafe operation.
arXiv:2608. 14089v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety classifiers deployed with large language models often fail for two reasons: their decisions reflect the policy learned during training rather than the deployer's desired policy, and their performance degrades as deployment traffic evolves.
arXiv:2609.07917v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counterfactual explanations formalize "what-if" scenarios by identifying modifications to an input instance that obtain a desired alternative predict...
arXiv:2608. 16747v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many areas of AI research, such as language model interpretability and chain of thought faithfulness, seek to explain model behaviors.
Safety alignment in large language models can be fragile under fine-tuning, as even benign task adaptation may increase harmful compliance. Existing defenses mainly follow two directions: they either intervene during or after fine-tuning through retraining or weight modification, which can be costly and may hurt task performance, or they use model-agnostic safety classifiers, which may miss failures specific to a given fine-tuned checkpoint.
SAGE-Loop is a new closed‑loop, self‑adaptive AutoML framework that uses large language models to generate and validate machine learning pipelines in multiple rounds, allowing trial‑and‑repair and adaptive ensemble selection for both supervised and unsupervised tasks. It addresses the lack of instant feedback and correction in existing AutoML by enabling process‑level recovery from failures and dynamic use of model diversity. Experiments on 20 public datasets show consistent improvements in performance and stability across classification, regression, and clustering, and demonstrate the system’s ability to recover from execution failures.
The paper investigates code-level autonomous research loops (ARLs) where a language model edits training pipelines to improve an in-loop metric. It identifies a failure mode called algorithmic mode collapse, where edits become semantically uniform despite surface diversity, leading to a growing gap between in-loop gains and independent evaluation. The authors propose Diversity‑Aware Proposal Sampling (DAPS), a lightweight method that reduces semantic decay by 69.1% and boosts faithfulness by over 80% while maintaining optimization speed.
arXiv:2607. 11475v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety alignment in large language models can be fragile under fine-tuning, as even benign task adaptation may increase harmful compliance.