arXiv AI

ExplainGuard: A Zero Trust Framework for Post-Hoc Explanation Integrity Guarantees in Blackbox XAI Models

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 27

Certified in Theory, Broken in Practice: Assumption Gaps in Cryptographic Model Certification

arXiv:2607. 21839v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Privacy-preserving machine learning auditing protocols allow auditors to assess models for properties such as accuracy or fairness, without revealing their internals or training data.

By Carter Luck, Olive Franzese-McLaughlin, Elisaweta Masserova, Akira Takahashi, Antigoni Polychroniadou, Nicolas Papernot
arXiv AI
Jul 17

Towards a Unified Multidimensional Explainability Metric: Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Models

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.

By Georgios Makridis, Georgios Fatouros, Athanasios Kiourtis, Dimitrios Kotios, Vasileios Koukos, Dimosthenis Kyriazis, Jonh Soldatos
arXiv AI
2d ago

No Judgment Without a Reason: Counterfactual Receipts for Versioned AI Evaluators

The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.

By Ye Chen, Weining Zhang
arXiv AI
2d ago

Prediction certification cannot replace explanation certification: a competence envelope for trustworthy AI under compound stress

The paper argues that prediction‑based certifications—such as accuracy, calibration, and conformal coverage—are insufficient to guarantee trustworthy AI. It proves a separation theorem showing that a model can appear reliable under all prediction‑side certificates yet differ arbitrarily in explanation fidelity and deployment behaviour. The authors propose a competence envelope framework that combines both prediction and explanation certification to detect such hidden failures.

By Nataliya Shakhovska, Ivan Izonin, Stergios-Aristoteles Mitoulis