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:2602.02639v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM self-explanations are often presented as a promising tool for AI oversight, yet their faithfulness to the model's true reasoning process...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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:2606. 28615v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where free-text explanations such as chain-of-thought and post-hoc rationales are used to justify model outputs.
arXiv:2606. 09568v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The growing complexity of self-adaptive and self-organising systems, fuelled by advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), has made them increasingly difficult to understand and trust.
The paper investigates counterfactual self‑explanations in large language models, where a model edits an input minimally to change its own prediction. Experiments on sentiment analysis and natural language inference with ten instruction‑tuned models from the LLaMA‑3 and Qwen‑2.5 families show that larger models produce more faithful, minimal, and human‑aligned counterfactuals. While rationale‑guided prompts improve minimality and alignment, they do not consistently enhance faithfulness, indicating that explanation quality depends heavily on model capacity and requires empirical validation.
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...
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.