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.
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...
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: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.
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.
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: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:2606. 04990v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based agents are evolving from passive text generators into autonomous systems capable of planning, tool use, retrieval, memory access, environmental interaction, and multi-agent collaboration.
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.
LEDGER is a tracing and review system for large language model agents that constructs layered trace graphs from observed sessions. It groups raw trace records into Evidence Nodes and Workflow Nodes, anchors artifacts as evidence, and adds typed semantic edges linking claims to supporting actions, artifacts, and checks. The resulting traces reveal workflow decisions, artifact lineage, repair steps, validation coverage, and claim‑support paths for evidence‑centered audit.