Abstract
Explaining machine-learning models is increasingly important for decision-making and consumer trust, yet it is widely believed to come at a cost: existing Explainable AI (XAI) methods suffer from a persistent accuracy-explainability trade-off. We argue that this trade-off is not fundamental, but an artifact of treating explanation and prediction as separate objectives; when properly coupled, they become complementary, so that equipping a model to explain itself improves, rather than degrades, its accuracy. We introduce the Rashomon Explanation paradigm, which builds a set of faithful, prediction-guiding explanations rather than a single one, and prove that this set is generally non-empty and that explanation fidelity bounds the performance of the models it guides. To explore this set, we propose RashomonLLM, an Explanation-Prediction-Reflection agentic workflow that generates explanations in natural language by iteratively aligning them with predictions, and we prove it converges and recovers the full set. Across customer-churn classification, clinical survival regression, and industrial click-through prediction on large-scale live-streaming logs, RashomonLLM significantly outperforms state-of-the-art prediction and XAI baselines on both accuracy and explanation quality, with gains driven by explanation fidelity and robust to distribution shifts, temporal splits, and seeds. Our framework thus advances business performance while laying the groundwork for consumer trust.
Explore similar work
Jun 4, 2026cs.SE
Multiple machine learning models can achieve near-equivalent predictive performance on the same task, yet provide divergent feature-based explanations. This is called the Rashomon effect of (explainable) machine learning, and it raises the question of which explanations, if any, are trustworthy. We propose a framework based on metamorphic testing that assesses explanation faithfulness without requiring ground-truth labels by exploring attributed feature importance from post-hoc explanation methods. Five metamorphic relations formalize expected consistency properties between model behavior and feature attributions. We apply this general framework to two tabular regression datasets and two post-hoc explainers (SHAP and LIME) to demonstrate the approach. The framework offers a practical, model-agnostic tool for selecting accurate models with reliable and trustworthy explanations.
Helge Spieker, Jørn Eirik Betten, Arnaud Gotlieb
May 31, 2026cs.CL
Natural-language explanations are often treated as a unified interface for understanding model behavior, but different explanation sources may support simulation in different ways. This paper compares two families of explanations for question answering models: verbalized feature attributions and self-generated rationales. We evaluate them under a shared counterfactual simulation setting, using an LLM judge as predictor and measuring whether it can better predict a model's answers to follow-up questions when given its explanation. Across multiple instruction-tuned models, we analyze how explanation source, verbalization strategy, and feature granularity affect the simulatability of explanations. Our results show that explanation format and granularity affect simulatability: attribution-based explanations and self-generated rationales differ in how much they improve counterfactual prediction, with effects that vary across models and formats.
Pingjun Hong, Benjamin Roth
May 19, 2026cs.CL
LLMs deployed multilingually are often audited via English explanations for non-English inputs. We evaluate extractive explanations ''where the model identifies input token spans as evidence alongside a generated rationale'' and uncover a systematic trade-off: English-pivot explanations can achieve higher span agreement with human rationales while their evidence becomes less causally grounded in the model's prediction, as measured by both comprehensiveness and sufficiency. Across 3 tasks, 5languages, and 2multilingual LLM families, we find that English explanations frequently produce fluent but loosely anchored rationales, with comprehensiveness degrading by up to 5.7x relative to native-language conditions - even as task accuracy remains stable across settings. For socially nuanced classification, English pivots also fail to preserve pragmatic cues, reducing both faithfulness and span agreement. We recommend auditing explanations in the input language, reporting multi-faceted faithfulness metrics beyond lexical overlap, and treating English rationales as communication summaries rather than faithful decision traces.
Somnath Banerjee, Pranav Jha, Rima Hazra +1