An Agentic Approach to Generating XAI-Narratives
Organizations: University of Antwerp, Belgium
Abstract
Explainable AI (XAI) research has experienced substantial growth in recent years. Existing XAI methods, however, have been criticized for being technical and expert-oriented, motivating the development of more interpretable and accessible explanations. In response, large language model (LLM)-generated XAI narratives have been proposed as a promising approach for translating post-hoc explanations into more accessible, natural-language explanations. In this work, we propose a multi-agent framework for XAI narrative generation and refinement. The framework comprises the Narrator, which generates and revises narratives based on feedback from multiple Critic Agents on faithfulness and coherence metrics, thereby enabling narrative improvement through iteration. We design five agentic systems (Basic Design, Critic Design, Critic-Rule Design, Coherent Design, and Coherent-Rule Design) and systematically evaluate their effectiveness across five LLMs on five tabular datasets. Results validate that the Basic Design, the Critic Design, and the Critic-Rule Design are effective in improving the faithfulness of narratives across all LLMs. Claude-4.5-Sonnet on Basic Design performs best, reducing the number of unfaithful narratives by 90% after three rounds of iteration. To address recurrent issues, we further introduce an ensemble strategy based on majority voting. This approach consistently enhances performance for four LLMs, except for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp. These findings highlight the potential of agentic systems to produce faithful and coherent XAI narratives.
Figures & tables
| Concepts | Reason | Original Setting | New Setting |
| Iteration Round | How does the number of iteration rounds impact the result? | Round=2 | Round=10 |
| The Number of Features | How does the number of features included in the narrative impact the result? | Feature=4 | Feature=8 |
| No-Baseline Setting | What if we don’t use baseline narratives? How does this impact the result? | Baseline narratives from Deepseek-chat-0324 | No baseline narratives |
| Different Baseline Narratives | How do the best and the worst baseline narratives impact the result? | Baseline narratives from Deepseek-chat-0324 | 1. Best Baseline narratives from DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp 2. Worst Baseline narratives from Llama 3.3 70B Instruct |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 based Designs | Datasets | Faithfulness | No. Unf. Narr. | ||
| RA | SA | VA | |||
| Baseline | AVG. | (0.900 ) | 0.958 | 0.990 | (31) |
| diabetes | 0.838 | 0.988 | 1.000 | 5 | |
| stroke | (0.925) | 0.938 | 0.975 | (8) | |
| student | 0.925 | 0.913 | 1.000 | 8 | |
| fifa | 0.875 | 0.963 | 1.000 | 7 | |
| Category | Conditions |
| C1: Confusing Faithfulness Instruction | C1.1 Since the Faithful Evaluator feedback contains non-directional instruction, the Narrator does not clearly know how to revise accordingly. This occurs because the Faithful Evaluator only reveals the error type by how it is designed, without mentioning where the Narrator should change to. |
| C1.2 (edge case) The Faithful Critic feedback contains information on reordering the mentioning of features while it already satisfies. This occurs when a narrative mentions all features following the order in the SHAP, while containing inappropriate descriptive phrases that violate the importance of that feature in the SHAP table (Figure 8 ). | |
| C2: Extraction Mistake | The Faithful Evaluator reports non-existing faithfulness issues when a narrative is (arguably) faithful. |
| C3: Counterintuitive Feature Influence | When the given SHAP input contains counterintuitive feature effects, the Narrator is inclined to disregard and generate a narrative following common sense. |
| C4: Misleading Coherence Instruction | The Coherence Agent gives feedback with the intention to improve the narrative’s coherence, but it inadvertently encourages revisions that violate the SHAP input. |
| C5: Generation Misalignment | The Narrator fails to generate a faithful narrative with an identifiable cause from the four above. This is therefore attributed to one-time generation errors that LLMs may produce. |
| Designs | LLMs | Faithfulness | Overall (round 2) | ||
| RA | SA | VA | |||
| Basic Design | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 0.905 0.970 0.990 | 0.957 0.997 1.000 | 0.990 0.995 0.997 | 0.996 |
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | 0.898 0.870 0.887 | 0.950 0.965 0.970 | 0.990 0.995 0.995 | 0.951 | |
| GPT-5 | 0.898 0.945 0.972 | 0.965 0.995 0.997 | 0.993 0.995 1.000 | 0.990 | |
| Llama 3.3 70B Instruct | 0.857 0.875 0.863 | 0.940 0.960 0.975 | 0.993 0.997 1.000 | 0.946 | |
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | 0.905 0.943 0.940 | 0.960 0.988 0.980 | 0.992 0.988 0.993 | 0.971 | |
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Basic Design | Critic Design | ||
| Problem Categorization | number | instance | number | instance |
| C1: Confusing Faithfulness Instruction | 10 | diabetes: index 2,4,7,17 stroke: index 13 student: index 1, 12, 14 credit: index 6,10 | 1 | student: index 14 |
| C2: Extraction Mistake | 3 | stroke: index 2 student: index 5, 18 | 3 | stroke: index 2 student: index 3, 5 |
| C3: Counterintuitive Feature Influence | 1 | student: index 16 | 1 | student: index 16 |
| C4: Misleading Coherence Instruction | ||||
| C5: Generation Misalignment | ||||
| LLMs | Designs | Faithfulness | Overall (round 2) | No. Unf. Narr. (round 2) | ||
| RA(o) RA(e) | SA(o) SA(e) | VA(o) VA(e) | (o) (e) | (o) (e) | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Basic Design | 0.990 1.000 | 1.000 1.000 | 0.997 0.997 | 0.996 0.999 | 3 1 |
| Critic Design | 0.960 0.970 | 0.993 0.997 | 0.997 0.997 | 0.983 0.988 | 9 6 | |
| Critic-Rule Design | 0.960 0.970 | 0.997 0.997 | 0.997 0.997 | 0.985 0.988 | 8 6 | |
| Coherent Design | 0.860 0.872 | 0.980 0.990 | 0.997 1.000 | 0.946 0.954 | 28 23 | |
| Coherent-Rule Design | 0.878 0.892 | 0.985 0.993 | 0.997 1.000 | 0.953 0.962 | 25 20 | |
| LLMs | Faithfulness | Accuracies from Round 0 to Round 9 | Overall (round 9 ) |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | RA | 0.905 0.960 0.960 0.955 0.960 0.958 0.963 0.958 0.963 0.958 | 0.984 |
| SA | 0.958 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 | ||
| VA | 0.990 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 | ||
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | RA | 0.898 0.943 0.983 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.990 0.990 0.990 | 0.995 |
| SA | 0.953 0.985 0.990 0.990 0.995 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 | ||
| VA | 0.993 0.993 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 |
| LLMs | No. Unf. Narr. (round 9) | C1: Confusing Faithfulness Instruction | C2: Extraction Mistake |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 8 | 2 | 6 |
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | 4 | 4 | |
| GPT-5 | 9 | 2 | 7 |
| Llama 3.3 70B Instruct | 5 | 5 | |
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | 1 | 1 |
| LLMs | Experiments | Faithfulness | Overall (round 2) | ||
| RA | SA | VA | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Original Exp. | 0.905 0.960 0.960 | 0.957 0.993 0.997 | 0.990 0.995 0.997 | 0.985 |
| Feature=8 | 0.750 0.924 0.939 | 0.959 0.991 0.993 | 0.993 0.994 0.998 | 0.976 | |
| No Baseline | 0.895 0.970 0.970 | 0.983 0.990 0.995 | 0.978 0.990 0.995 | 0.987 | |
| Best Base. | 0.940 0.965 0.975 | 0.958 0.983 0.990 | 0.993 0.998 1.000 | 0.988 | |
| Worst Base. | 0.775 0.965 0.970 | 0.968 0.988 0.993 | 0.985 0.993 0.998 | 0.987 | |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| LLMs | Faithfulness | Mean | Min | Max | Std Dev. |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | RA | 0.905 | 0.905 | 0.905 | 0.000 |
| SA | 0.958 | 0.957 | 0.960 | 0.001 | |
| VA | 0.990 | 0.990 | 0.990 | 0.000 | |
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | RA | 0.900 | 0.897 | 0.907 | 0.004 |
| SA | 0.952 | 0.950 | 0.952 | 0.001 | |
| VA | 0.990 | 0.988 | 0.993 | 0.002 |
| LLMs | Agentic System Designs | Average (round 2) | Count |
| (o) (e) | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Basic Design | 0.996 0.999 | 2 |
| Critic Design | 0.983 0.988 | 0 | |
| Critic-Rule Design | 0.985 0.988 | 0 | |
| Coherent Design | 0.946 0.954 | 0 | |
| Coherent-Rule Design | 0.953 0.962 | 0 |
| Model | Model (check point) | Geograph | Open source | Cost in total (Euro) (o) | Cost in total (Euro) (e) |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 | US | No | 10.7 | 31.8 |
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | mistral-medium-2508 | Europe | No | 1.7 | 4.5 |
| GPT-5 | gpt-5-chat-latest | US | No | 4.7 | 10.6 |
| Llama-3.3-70B | llama-3.3-70b-instruct | US | open-weight | 0.04 | 1.2 |
| Deepseek-V3.2-Exp | deepseek-v3.2-exp | China | open-weight | 0.6 | 2.0 |
Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Explainable artificial intelligence develops ways to make AI decisions understandable, testable, and useful to people.
See all 320 papers