The growing complexity of self-adaptive and self-organising systems, fuelled by advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), has made them increasingly difficult to understand and trust. While Explainable AI aims to provide insight into AI decision-making, a more advanced goal is for systems to explain themselves - an ability referred to as Self-Explainability (SX). This article presents a systematic literature review on SX, analysing existing approaches, including their domains, targets, and evaluation methods. The review develops a unified definition and taxonomy of SX and introduces Levels of Self-Explainability, providing a framework for positioning current and future research. Our results show that most SX approaches remain conceptual, with few practical implementations. Moreover, there is currently no formal or de facto standard for evaluating SX, highlighting a major research gap. This work thus establishes a foundation and roadmap for advancing Self-Explainability in complex systems.
Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.
The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.
The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.