XALIGN is a visual analytics workflow that simultaneously displays rule‑based explanations and multiple feature attribution methods (TreeSHAP, KernelSHAP, and LIME) for a single Random Forest model. By aligning these methods side by side, XALIGN makes agreements and contradictions between them visible, allowing users to compare explanations against domain knowledge. The approach was tested on the German Credit dataset and a meteorological classification task, where it uncovered discrepancies that single‑method analyses missed, and experts reported it helped identify influential features and reduce over‑trust in predictions.
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.
By Yanfei Hu Fleischhauer, Alona Zharova, Nadja Klein, Stefan Feuerriegel
arXiv:2608. 10766v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision.
By Kaivalya Rawal, Daria Onitiu, Brent Mittelstadt, Sandra Wachter, Chris Russell
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
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.
By Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau, Francesco Spinnato, Riccardo Guidotti
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.
By Tom\'as Pereira, Jo\~ao Vitorino, Eva Maia, Isabel Pra\c{c}a