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 proposes a new evaluation test for explanation methods: if an explanation accurately captures how a model uses its features, one should be able to reconstruct the model’s predictions from it. The authors convert explanations into predictors by summing feature effects and assess how well these predictors reproduce the model on unseen data, without any fitting. They apply this test to partial dependence plots, accumulated local effects, SHAP, and LIME across multiple datasets and model families, showing that the best method depends on feature dependence and that some existing quality metrics can favor flawed explanations.
arXiv:2607. 29614v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of deep learning models in high-risk domains has intensified the need for trustworthy Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI).
arXiv:2607. 14096v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In predictive modeling, the ability to explain why a model produces a given target prediction has become increasingly important [5, 10].
arXiv:2605. 27618v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite the wide use of explainability techniques to attempt to understand the behavior of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the generated explanations may not always be reliable.
The paper introduces Adaptive Derivative-Ordered Random Explanation (ADORE), a unified framework that uses first- and second-order derivatives to capture nonlinear feature interactions and feature-sample dynamics. ADORE combines global feature importance with local sample contributions, quantifying both magnitude and direction of feature impact while identifying critical samples. It achieves computational efficiency via randomized SVD and dynamic sparsity detection, outperforming LIME and SHAP across tabular, text, and image data, and is released as an open-source Python package on GitHub.
The paper introduces a straightforward evaluation method for explanation techniques: by converting each explanation into a predictor that sums the feature effects, the authors assess how accurately this predictor reproduces the original model’s predictions on unseen data. This approach applies to any explanation expressible as a function of features and is demonstrated on PDP, ALE, SHAP, and LIME. The authors theoretically show that summing partial dependence curves yields the optimal additive summary when features are independent, but this property fails with dependent features, and empirical results across diverse datasets confirm that the best-performing method depends on feature dependence.
arXiv:2607. 28124v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As forecasts increasingly drive decisions in fields such as energy, transportation, and healthcare, understanding the historical data behind these predictions has become as crucial as the predictions themselves.
arXiv:2512. 03578v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Time series extrinsic regression (TSER) refers to the task of predicting a continuous target variable from an input time series.
The paper introduces eXplaining to Learn (eX2L), an interpretable framework that regularizes a classifier by penalizing similarity between Grad‑CAM maps of the main label classifier and a confounder classifier. This approach decorrelates confounding features from latent representations during training. On the Spawrious Many‑to‑Many Hard Challenge benchmark, eX2L outperforms the current state‑of‑the‑art by 5.49% in average accuracy and 10.90% in worst‑group accuracy, while also demonstrating functional domain invariance through explicit label‑nuisance decoupling.
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.
The paper introduces a formal auditing framework to evaluate the robustness and fidelity of post‑hoc explainers such as SHAP and LIME. It defines a Trust Score that combines how stable an explanation is under small input perturbations with how well the highlighted features actually influence the model’s prediction. Experiments on a Madagascar malnutrition dataset show that even highly accurate models can produce unreliable explanations, and that fidelity scores degrade when models overfit.