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:2606. 14838v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs.
By Louis Mahon, Elliot Ford, Callum Hackett
arXiv:2606. 16786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short.
By Eric G\"unther, Bal\'azs Szabados, Kristof Meding, Gunnar K\"onig, Sebastian Bordt, Ulrike von Luxburg
Explainable AI (XAI) research has produced a plethora of explanation techniques, yet user studies repeatedly show that available explanations are not effective in practice. We argue that, given the si...
arXiv:2607. 21209v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the field of Artificial Intelligence, an agent is a system which is able to autonomously make decisions in order to reach a desired goal.
By Heather Merhout (Miami University), Daniela Inclezan (Miami University)
arXiv:2608.22356v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) research has produced a plethora of explanation techniques, yet user studies repeatedly show that available explanations are not e...
By Claire Vlases, Katelyn Morrison
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:2606. 07211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous robotic systems are being proposed for use in hazardous environments, often to reduce the risks to human workers.
By Matt Luckcuck, Hazel M Taylor, Marie Farrell
The paper discusses recursive self‑improvement (RSI) for AI, describing how systems can use experience and feedback to make lasting enhancements to both their abilities and their future improvement processes. It introduces the Headroom‑Closed Index (HCI) to expose limitations in current large language models and outlines a development roadmap for RSI, progressing from autonomy in execution to full recursive meta‑improvement. The authors analyze RSI in various contexts such as scientific discovery, embodied intelligence, and software engineering, noting differing requirements and development speeds, and they connect RSI research to practical industry applications while highlighting key challenges to achieving genuine RSI.
By Yi Duan, Ying Liu, Zirui Tang, Haodong Chen, Jun Zhou, Yumou Liu, Bangrui Xu, Yukai Wu, Sidi Chen, Yuhan Zhou, Haoyu Wang, Xiaoyou Yu, Shaokun Han, Xuzhou Zhu, Le Zhou, Bolin Lu, Wei Zhou, Jiachen Liu, Nuozhou Fang, Jiaxin Tian, Ruoyu Chen, Yuxuan Li, Kai Zuo, Kaiyan Zhang, Jiantao Qiu, Conghui He, Guoliang Li, Bowen Zhou, Zhiyuan Liu, Zhoufutu Wen, Jihua Kang, Xuanhe Zhou, Fan Wu
arXiv:2607. 11771v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains.
By Umm-e- Habiba, Lucas Mauser, Jonas Fritzsch, Justus Bogner, Stefan Wagner
arXiv:2605. 24727v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While large-scale models such as LLMs and diffusion models have achieved practical success, public institutions have emphasized the importance of explainability in AI.
By Atsushi Suzuki, Jing Wang
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.
By Yanfei Hu Fleischhauer, Alona Zharova, Nadja Klein, Stefan Feuerriegel