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.
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.
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.
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...
arXiv:2602. 06841v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Over the last decade, Explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure.
The paper proposes an information‑flow perspective on explainability, arguing that exposing reasons for observed effects is a positive flow of information that must be specified and verified. It introduces an epistemic temporal logic with counterfactual causes to formalize the requirement that agents gain knowledge about why an effect occurred, and presents an algorithm for checking finite‑state models against these specifications. A prototype implementation is evaluated on benchmarks, demonstrating the ability to distinguish explainable from unexplainable systems and to incorporate privacy constraints.
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.
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:2609.23939v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective communication between users and AI agents is essential for human-AI collaboration. The XY problem is a well-known communication pitfall where...
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: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...
arXiv:2601. 14764v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular declarative reasoning and problem solving approach in symbolic AI.
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.