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
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
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: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
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...
By Vittoria Vineis, Fabiano Veglianti, Lorenzo Antonelli, Claudia Di Carlo, Matteo Silvestri, Gabriele Tolomei
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.
By Nhi Nguyen, Shauli Ravfogel, Rajesh Ranganath
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.
By Tom Beyer, Svea Wisy, Sven Tomforde
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.
By Giannis Kalyvas, Giorgos Filandrianos, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis, Vassilis Lyberatos, Giorgos Stamou
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
The paper proposes a method to steer large language models (LLMs) to generate explanations tailored to specific target groups. It first identifies group-specific attributes related to explanatory style and knowledge, then uses activation engineering to compute steering vectors that are added to the LLM’s internal activations during inference. Experiments show that this attribute-based steering improves specificity and factuality of explanations compared to prompting and existing steering baselines, and a human study confirms better tailoring to target groups.
By Leandra Fichtel, Janek Prange, Henning Wachsmuth