arXiv:2608. 10766v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision.
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.
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:2608. 06351v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper addresses the limitations of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) with respect to insufficient evaluation.
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: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.
arXiv:2606. 02632v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, especially large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used to generate scientific hypotheses and mechanistic explanations from observational data.
NOTAI.AI is an explainable AI-generated text detection system that goes beyond a simple binary label by showing which signals influenced its prediction. It combines sentence-level conditional probability curvature, a neural detector score, and interpretable stylometric and readability features in an XGBoost meta-classifier, and explains predictions using TreeSHAP feature contributions that can be turned into concise natural-language explanations. Evaluated on a balanced subset of RAID, the full model achieves 0.9685 F1 and receives 94.5–98.6% approval from model judges for the faithfulness of its explanations.
As artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models become integral to network operations, their lack of transparency poses a significant barrier to operator trust. Existing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques often fail to bridge this gap for non-specialists, producing technical outputs that are difficult to translate into actionable insights.
arXiv:2608.21449v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Time series arise in a wide range of application domains and are analyzed using machine learning in decision-critical settings. Time series classificat...
arXiv:2606. 10942v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models become integral to network operations, their lack of transparency poses a significant barrier to operator trust.
arXiv:2605. 28215v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In-context learning (ICL) enables multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to classify images from a few labelled examples.
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.