Explainable AI (XAI) research has produced a plethora of explanation techniques, yet user studies repeatedly show that available explanations are not effective in practice. We argue that, given the siloed nature of conventional XAI, users are struggling to select the appropriate XAI technique. Viewing XAI through a philosophical lens, we offer a formalization of what we call the selection problem: the systematic failure of XAI interfaces to bridge the gap between a user's natural-language uncertainty and the explanation technique that resolves it. Following a logical premise-conclusion format, we show that conventional interfaces require users to translate their uncertainty into a technique selection, a challenging prerequisite to meet. We also propose a structural solution: a multi-agent LLM orchestration tool that translates the user's query to the proper XAI explanation technique. We provide an example of how this structural solution could be instantiated to address the selection problem.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (Top & Middle) Examples of existing public LLM interfaces with multi-agent functionality used for design inspiration. (Bottom) Example design of offering an LLM orchestrator “Smart” mode that routes natural-language queries from the user to one of the specialized XAI agents through function calling.
Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to enhance the transparency and accountability of machine learning systems, yet most methods follow a one-size-fits-all paradigm that neglects user differences in expertise, goals, and cognitive needs. Although Large Language Models can translate technical explanations into natural language, they introduce challenges related to faithfulness and hallucinations. To address these challenges, we present PONTE (Personalized Orchestration for Natural language Trustworthy Explanations), a human-in-the-loop framework for adaptive and reliable XAI narratives. PONTE models personalization as a closed-loop validation and adaptation process rather than prompt engineering. It combines: (i) a low-dimensional preference model capturing stylistic requirements; (ii) a preference-conditioned generator grounded in structured XAI artifacts; and (iii) verification modules enforcing numerical faithfulness, informational completeness, and stylistic alignment, optionally supported by retrieval-grounded argumentation. User feedback iteratively updates the preference state, enabling quick personalization. Automatic and human evaluations across healthcare and finance domains show that the verification-refinement loop substantially improves completeness and stylistic alignment over validation-free generation. Human studies further confirm strong agreement between intended preference vectors and perceived style, robustness to generation stochasticity, and consistently positive quality assessments.
Vittoria Vineis, Matteo Silvestri, Lorenzo Antonelli +2
Sapienza University of Rome · Syllotips · TellmewAI s.r.l.
The demand for Explainable AI (XAI) has triggered an explosion of methods, producing a landscape so fragmented that we now rely on surveys of surveys. Yet, fundamental challenges persist: conflicting metrics, failed sanity checks, and unresolved debates over robustness and fairness. The only consensus on how to achieve explainability is a lack of one. This has led many to point to the absence of a ground truth for defining ``the'' correct explanation as the main culprit. This position paper posits that the persistent discord in XAI arises not from an absent ground truth but from a ground truth that exists, albeit as an elusive and challenging target: the causal model that governs the relevant system. By reframing XAI queries about data, models, or decisions as causal inquiries, we prove the necessity and sufficiency of causal models for XAI. We contend that without this causal grounding, XAI remains unmoored. Ultimately, we encourage the community to converge around advanced concept and causal discovery to escape this entrenched uncertainty.
Amir-Hossein Karimi
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo & Vector Institute, Canada