The Mirror Agent Model: a Bayesian Architecture for Interpretable Agent Behavior

In the field of Artificial Intelligence, an agent is a system which is able to autonomously make decisions in order to reach a desired goal. As these systems grow more prevalent in our day-to-day lives, there has been an increased need to add explainability features which can provide an account for an agent's behavior. We therefore propose a framework that outlines how to produce comprehensible explanations for policy-aware agents, or agents which have rule-enforcing policies incorporated in their decision-making framework. This framework is designed using insights from the social sciences on how to produce good explanations. It is implemented in the Answer Set Programming language while using Python to assist with information extraction and natural-language translation. Because these agents incur penalties when violating policies, we are able to leverage these penalties to detect undesirable events in scenarios that are counterfactual to the agents' original actions. This lends itself to creating contrastive explanations (e.g., "the agent performed this action because, had it not, undesirable event X would have occurred."), which formulate the core component for our explainability framework. The framework is evaluated using a survey wherein human participants provide feedback on our program-generated explanations.

AI agents are promising for high-stakes enterprise workflows, but dependable deployment remains limited because these tool-use decisions are difficult to diagnose and control. Agents may skip required tool calls, invoke tools unnecessarily, or take actions whose consequences become visible only after execution. Existing observability methods are external: prompts reveal correlations, evaluations score outputs, and logs arrive only after the model has already acted. In long-horizon settings, these failures are costly because an early tool mistake can alter the rest of the execution trajectory, increase token consumption, and create downstream safety and security risk. We introduce a mechanistic-interpretability toolkit built on Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs), which decompose activations into sparse internal features, and linear probes, lightweight classifiers that read signals from those features. The framework reads model states before each action and infers whether a tool is needed and how risky the next tool action is. It identifies the model layers and features most associated with tool decisions and tests their functional importance through feature ablation. We train the probes on multi-step agent execution traces from the NVIDIA Nemotron function-calling dataset and apply the same workflow to GPT-OSS 20B and Gemma 3 27B models. The goal is not to replace external evaluation, but to add a missing layer: visibility into what the model signaled internally before action. This helps surface deeper causes of agent failure, especially in long-horizon runs where an early mistake can impact subsequent agent behavior. More broadly, the paper shows how mechanistic interpretability can support internal observability for monitoring tool calls and risk in agent systems.

Recent years have seen the employment of a plethora of machine learning (ML) models in high-stakes domains, but they remain largely opaque to the practitioners who act on their predictions. While post-hoc explanation methods offer a lens into this model behavior, wielding them effectively demands expertise most domain experts lack: navigating high-dimensional outputs, selecting the best explanations, and synthesizing evidence across disparate tools. To this end, we present MEA, a multi-agent framework that removes the explanation knowledge barrier entirely: a Proposer agent selects and configures explanation tools based on the question and modality, while an Actor agent is optimized end-to-end against faithfulness, transforming the outputs into natural language explanations grounded in model behavior across tabular, text, and vision modalities. Further, we introduce diverse question types spanning feature attribution, counterfactual reasoning, and spurious feature detection, each paired with a perturbation-based faithfulness metric. We find that frontier LLMs systematically produce unfaithful explanations. By optimizing against faithfulness rewards augmented with a modality-adaptive penalty, MEA consistently outperforms post hoc explainers, agentic, and closed-source baselines across six datasets, with reward-driven optimization yielding faithfulness gains of +28% (tabular), +21% (text), and +34% (vision) over the untrained backbone. More broadly, our findings suggest that AI agents themselves can serve as a scalable, adaptable interface to ML explainability, opening a path toward natural-language explainability that generalizes beyond the fixed, single-purpose tools that have long defined the field.