arXiv:2607. 16652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This position paper argues that claims about explanation stability are scientifically invalid without cross method validation.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.06173v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-deployment drift poses a critical risk to algorithmic accountability, particularly when ground truth labels are delayed and performance degradatio...
arXiv:2603. 25251v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) methods are commonly evaluated using functional correctness metrics, sometimes termed faithfulness or fidelity, which estimate how closely an explanation reflects the model's reasoning.
arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.
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: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).
The paper evaluates uncertainty estimation (UE) methods for clinical vision‑language models (VLMs) on visual question answering (VQA). Across 8 UE techniques and 12 VLMs, UE quality tracks model accuracy, degrading where performance is weakest, and fails to signal uncertainty when models are stressed by hiding the correct answer (NOTA perturbations). However, UE on unperturbed inputs reliably predicts which predictions will collapse under NOTA, suggesting UE can diagnose model fragility.