arXiv:2606. 29346v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-hoc explanation methods are routinely used to interpret scientific machine learning models, with the deliverable understood to be insight into the phenomenon the model has been trained on.
arXiv:2608. 05702v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific machine learning commonly validates models at the level of a subdomain, a benchmark split, or an explanation for one prediction.
arXiv:2606. 26228v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We review the concepts of interpretability and explainability as they apply to machine learning in physics.
arXiv:2606. 06056v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multiple machine learning models can achieve near-equivalent predictive performance on the same task, yet provide divergent feature-based explanations.
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.
arXiv:2606. 08532v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Modern artificial intelligence excels at prediction but cannot explain.
arXiv:2603. 14894v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Trust and ethical concerns due to the widespread deployment of opaque machine learning (ML) models motivating the need for reliable model explanations.
arXiv:2606. 02632v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, especially large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used to generate scientific hypotheses and mechanistic explanations from observational data.
arXiv:2608. 13633v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine learning is now a central tool for solving inverse problems in particle physics and astronomy.
arXiv:2609.01526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific agents must learn not only how to reason, but also what to believe. However, existing LLM agents typically express scientific hypotheses in...
The paper argues that explainable AI for computer vision has focused too much on developing interpretability methods rather than assessing how interpretable the models themselves are. It proposes a shift toward model-centric evaluation, using existing tools to compare what different models represent and compute, and emphasizes the need to measure whether humans can truly understand these models. The authors review the current toolbox, survey limited model comparison work, draw parallels to systems neuroscience, and outline a future agenda for model-focused XAI.
The paper proposes a distributional theory explaining how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence into their decision-making process. It identifies three key predictions: (1) evidence is more persuasive when it aligns with the model’s prior beliefs, (2) models more readily accept errors from their own internal processes than from external sources, and (3) the same evidence can improve weaker models while harming stronger ones. Extensive experiments across ten million trials, twelve LLMs from four families, and eight domains—including quantum mechanics, physics, genetics, and molecular biology—confirm these predictions and reveal that evidence integration occurs late in the network as a structured sequence of steps rather than through a simple trust metric.
arXiv:2606. 08532v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A scientific hypothesis is the first step in research and undergoes experimental validation, yet it also reflects a deep understanding of and reasoning about scientific phenomena.