Explainability Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

27 papers in the last four weeks, up 50% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 218

Jun 3, 2026cs.AI

Output Type Before Quality: A Standards-Derived XAI Admissibility Rubric for Autonomous-Driving Safety

Safety standards for ML-based autonomous driving specify the kind of evidence an assurance case must contain (directed cause-and-effect chains, quantified interventional effects, named root-cause variables), yet the XAI literature is organised by output type and technique family (saliency maps, feature attribution, counterfactuals, causal graphs, language traces). SHAP, the most-recommended ADS XAI method, returns a ranked feature list that no implementation effort can convert into a directed chain (Fig.1). We name this mismatch the evidence-type gap. From AMLAS, ISO 26262, ISO21448, ISO/PAS 8800 we derive 19 testable evidentiary criteria across 7 lifecycle stages with representative clause-cited derivations and score six XAI method classes structurally. Causal XAI emerges as structurally required to satisfy the derived criteria at three stages: hazard identification (+62% rubric gap), incident investigation (+50%), and data management (+50%); the verdict set is stable across thresholds T in (0%, 50%]$ and survives a worst-case single-cell flip down to T = 25%. At the remaining four stages, correlational or language-based methods are comparable or sufficient. The rubric identifies structural admissibility (necessary but not sufficient for compliance): an admissible method's specific output content may still be wrong, and validating that fidelity (the edges a fitted SCM produces, the cause a trace names) is the open assurance challenge. A single-VLA proof of concept on 1,996 real-world driving clips (79,840 rows, ten splits) is consistent with each method's observed output type matching its rubric prediction. XAI method selection for ADS safety assurance should be driven by lifecycle-stage evidence demand, not by method popularity.

Abhinaw Priyadershi, Mandar Pitale, Jelena Frtunikj +1

NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA · NVIDIA GmbH, Munich, Germany

AI Assurance Autonomous Driving Safety Evaluation Autonomous Driving Causal Interpretability Explainability Evaluation

Jun 2, 2026cs.CV

GridVQA-X: A Framework for Evaluating Multimodal Explainability Methods

With the increasing development of Vision-Language Models, it becomes imperative that their predictions are readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, the field of explainability has not kept pace with the multimodal surge. While recent Multimodal Explainable AI (MxAI) methods generate explanations to attribute the interaction between different modalities, current evaluation protocols lack the ground truth required to distinguish between true cross-modal reasoning (e.g., spatial composition) and shallow cross-modal shortcuts (e.g., Bag-of-Words attribute matching). It remains unknown whether MxAI methods faithfully capture synergistic interactions or merely hallucinate reasoning on models acting as simple feature detectors. In this paper, we introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability. Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations. We utilize this controlled environment to train paired ground-truth models on identical architectures:

M_{\text{pure}}

, which learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and

M_{\text{spur}}

, which is structurally forced to rely on cross-modal shortcuts. This behavioral divergence creates a rigorous testbed: a faithful explainer must report distinct reasoning pathways for each model. Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts, highlighting a critical gap in capturing true cross-modal synergy and misrepresenting how multimodal models actually make decisions.

Sujay Belsare, Sudarshan Nikhil, Sushant Kumar +2

1IIIT Hyderabad, India · University of Virginia, USA

Multimodal Reasoning Multimodal Model Interpretability Explainability Evaluation Multimodal Model Evaluation Multimodal Learning Multimodal Understanding

May 31, 2026cs.CL

Not All Explanations Simulate Equally: Comparing Verbalized Feature Attributions and Self-Generated Rationales

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

Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria · UniVie Doctoral School Computer Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria · Faculty of Philological and Cultural Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Feature Attribution LLM Interpretability Explainability Evaluation

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Disagreeing Rationales: Rethinking Classification and Explainability Evaluation in Hate Speech Detection

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.

Benedetta Muscato, Beiduo Chen, Gizem Gezici +2

Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy · Munich Center for Machine Learning, Germany · UMaiNLP, LMU Munich, Germany

Annotator Disagreement Hate Speech Detection Explainability Evaluation Explanation Evaluation

May 29, 2026cs.LG

Position: Genomic Model Research Must Move Beyond Anecdotal Evaluation of Interpretability Methods

Advances in machine learning and computational power have unlocked the predictive potential of the human genome, yet biologists now demand that these models also elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms. While interpretable machine learning (IML) techniques have been increasingly applied to bridge this gap, there has been a pervasive reliance on anecdotal validation: the vast majority of research relies on a single IML method and reports only isolated successful instances. Through a benchmarking study on transcription factor binding, we demonstrate the risks of current practices. We show that different IML methods can often (1) yield contradictory explanations for the same predictions, (2) fail to localize known regulatory motifs, and (3) fail to faithfully reflect the model's internal decision process. In light of this, we argue for a validation framework analogous to clinical trials: just as trials require rigorous design and adverse-event reporting, genomic interpretability must move beyond cherry-picked plausibility toward systematic assessment of consistency, faithfulness, and biological validity. To facilitate this, we propose a tiered framework to guide rigorous evaluation and reporting of genomic IML methods.

Shasha Zhou, Mingyu Huang, Ke Li

Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Interpretable ML Genomics Explainability Evaluation

May 29, 2026cs.LG

DEM: A Distilled Explanation Model for Interpretable Anomaly Detection in Physiological Sensor Networks

Anomaly detection in physiological sensor data from Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs) can be caused by sensor faults, network disruptions, or missing data, leading to false alarms. Hence, it demands both high predictive accuracy and clinically interpretable explanations. Existing approaches rely either on black-box models that achieve strong performance but offer no transparency, or on post-prediction explanation methods such as SHAP and LIME. In this paper, we propose the Distilled Explanation Model (DEM), a three-stage glass-box framework that distills the non-linear knowledge of a gradient boosting expert into an interpretable decision tree operating on residuals relative to a linear baseline, so that the explanation is not an approximation but the prediction itself. DEM introduces a novel distillation fidelity metric that quantifies how faithfully the explanation tree captures the expert model's non-linear contribution, providing a principled measure of explanation trustworthiness absent from prior interpretable models. Evaluated across four physiological datasets, including MIMIC-IV, WESAD, eICU, and an in-house SmartNet WBAN corpus, DEM achieves an AUC of 0.9964 on clinical contextual anomaly detection and 0.9047 on wearable stress detection while producing human-readable if-then rules at a controllable depth. Inference requires 0.17ms per 1000 samples, rendering DEM 1235x faster than SHAP-based post-hoc explanation and suitable for real-time physiological monitoring. Ablation studies confirm that the XGBoost distillation step provides measurable gains over naive residual fitting, and depth-sensitivity analysis demonstrates an explicit, user-controlled accuracy-interpretability trade-off unique to DEM among existing intrinsically interpretable models.

Jyotirmoy Singh, Anushka Roy, Shreea Bose +1

Interpretable ML Interpretable Anomaly Detection Explainability Evaluation Knowledge Distillation Anomaly Detection

May 29, 2026cs.LG

Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating Efficiency, Robustness and Explainability in Deep Learning for Malaria Diagnosis

Malaria remains a leading cause of mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, where scarce diagnostic infrastructure makes timely, accurate diagnosis particularly challenging. While deep learning offers a compelling path toward automated malaria screening, clinical adoption is hindered by computational cost and opacity in decision-making. This work benchmarks four deep learning models spanning a wide range of designed design architectures and model capacities on the NLM-Malaria dataset, jointly evaluating predictive performance, robustness, and post-hoc explainability. We find that lightweight, efficient-by-design models match their heavier counterparts in predictive performance, and the Friedman test confirms no statistically significant performance differences. CAM-based XAI methods consistently localize diagnostically relevant regions, while fine-grained attribution methods produce less targeted explanations, particularly with heavier backbones. Robustness evaluation under three types of image corruption further reveals that model confidence degrades faster than accuracy, providing a practical signal for human review. However, no XAI method is robust to corruption, with explanation reliability degrading at noise levels plausible in clinical practice, even when predictions remain accurate. These findings support the deployment of lightweight architectures for malaria diagnosis in resource-constrained settings, while highlighting the vulnerability of post-hoc explanations as an important consideration for responsible clinical deployment.

Olivier Kanamugire, Kerol Djoumessi

African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kigali, Rwanda · Hertie Institute for AI in Brain Health, University of Tübingen, Germany

Efficient Neural Network Inference Image Corruption Robustness Medical Diagnosis Medical Image Classification Explainability Evaluation Medical Image Benchmarks

May 28, 2026cs.CL

ExCAM: Explainable Cultural Awareness Metrics

Evaluating the cultural awareness of large language models is crucial to ensure the fairness of generated text and the generalizability of applications across the world. Recent benchmarks explore cultural goods like food or values like behavior in stressful situations through the lens of question answering or text generation tasks. However, creating these benchmarks requires time-intensive and costly human annotations. Also, benchmarks that evaluate cultural awareness in free text are scarce and often rely on dated evaluation mechanisms. To address this gap, we introduce ExCAM, an Explainable Cultural Awareness Metric, which is, to our knowledge, the first dedicated evaluation metric that identifies, rates and explains cultural errors in instruction-output pairs. To train and evaluate ExCAM, we introduce ExCAM40k, a dataset comprised of nine existing benchmarks that we reformat and enhance with synthetic errors. Compared to several baselines, including GPT-5, ExCAM achieves the highest error detection rate with up to 80% accuracy on a balanced test set. Therefore, ExCAM opens the pathway towards fine-grained and explainable cultural evaluation of free text.

Christoph Leiter, Haiyue Song, Hour Kaing +4

University of Mannheim, Germany · National Institute of Information and Communications Technology · University of Technology Nuremberg, Germany

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Cross-Cultural Language Model Evaluation Cultural Bias in Language Models Cultural Knowledge in Language Models Explainability Evaluation

May 27, 2026cs.LG

Comparing Post-Hoc Explainable AI Methods for Interpreting Black-Box EEG Models in Depression Detection

Recent advances in deep learning have enabled increasingly accurate electroencephalography (EEG)-based classification of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), but the decision-making processes of high-capacity models remain difficult to interpret. This study investigates multiple post-hoc explainability methods applied to an InceptionTime architecture trained for EEG-based MDD detection. The analysis includes Shapley-based, gradient-based, and perturbation-based attribution approaches: DeepSHAP, Integrated Gradients, GradCAM, Occlusion, and Permutation Feature Importance. Explainability analysis was performed within a subject-level stratified 5-fold cross-validation framework using global attribution aggregation across EEG segments and subjects. The evaluated methods revealed partially convergent attribution patterns, with recurring emphasis on frontal, temporal, and posterior EEG regions, particularly in the right hemisphere. Quantitative comparison demonstrated substantial agreement between gradient- and perturbation-based approaches, while DeepSHAP produced comparatively distinct attribution distributions. At the same time, variability between explainability methods highlighted the influence of methodological assumptions on the resulting explanations. Overall, the results suggest that different post-hoc explainability approaches capture partially overlapping relevance structures in EEG-based deep learning models for depression detection. Although the observed attribution patterns are broadly consistent with several previous EEG studies of MDD, the analysis should be interpreted as exploratory rather than evidence of definitive neurophysiological biomarkers or clinical applicability. The study highlights both the usefulness and limitations of post-hoc explainability for interpreting black-box EEG classifiers in psychiatric applications.

Antonia Šarčević, Nikolina Frid

University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Croatia

Gradient-Based Attribution Electroencephalography Feature Attribution SHAP Feature Attribution Depression Detection Explainability Evaluation

May 27, 2026cs.CL

Challenges in Explaining Pretrained Clinical Text Classifiers

Explaining the predictions of neural models in clinical NLP remains a significant challenge, especially for complex tasks involving long, unstructured medical texts. While post-hoc methods like LIME and SHAP are widely used, they often fall short when applied to clinical narratives. In this paper, we identify core limitations of token-level and perturbation-based explanation techniques through targeted demonstra- tions on a hospital length-of-stay prediction task. Our findings reveal issues such as overemphasis on non-informative tokens, instability in at- tributions, and high-confidence predictions for incoherent input variants. These results underscore the need for explanation strategies that are clin- ically meaningful, semantically grounded, and robust to linguistic noise.

Kristian Miok, Matej Klemen, Blaz Škrlj +1

Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia · ICAM - Advanced Environmental Research Institute, West University of Timisoara, Romania · Jožef Stefan Institute

Feature Attribution Neural Network Interpretability Explainability Evaluation Clinical NLP

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Show, Don't TELL: Explainable AI-Generated Text Detection

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.

Aldan Creo, Suraj Ranganath

School of Computing, Information and Data Sciences University of California, San Diego United States of America

Explainable Artificial Intelligence AI-Generated Text Detection Human Oversight of AI Explainability Evaluation

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Towards Faithful Agentic XAI: A Verification Method and an Open-World Benchmark for Better Model Faithfulness

Explainable AI (XAI) helps users interpret model behavior and identify potential faults. Agentic XAI systems use Large Language Models (LLMs) to make explanations more accessible through natural-language interaction, but they can also produce plausible yet unfaithful explanations. This risk arises because unreliable XAI outputs for complex models can be amplified by LLMs and mislead users. We propose Faithful Agentic XAI (FAX), a framework that improves explanation faithfulness through explicit verification. FAX decomposes draft explanations into claims and cross-checks them against inherently faithful tools, filtering unsupported or contradictory claims before final generation. We also introduce CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, an open-world reinforcement learning benchmark with complex policies, diverse goals, and challenging scenarios for assessing model-specific faithfulness. On CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, FAX improves simulation faithfulness from 0.20 for the strongest baseline to 0.46 while maintaining high informativeness, relevance, and fluency. On three tabular benchmarks, FAX performs competitively with prior Agentic XAI baselines, but our analysis shows that these settings can conflate task accuracy with model-specific faithfulness. These findings show that explicit verification is essential for faithful Agentic XAI and that that faithfulness benchmarks must be designed to test explanations against the behavior of the target model itself.

Jaechang Kim, Sunung Mun, Seungjoon Lee +2

Graduate School of AI, POSTECH · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, POSTECH · Krafton

Explainable Artificial Intelligence AI Agent Benchmarks Explainability Evaluation

May 26, 2026cs.LG

Evaluating Local Explainability Metrics for Machine Learning Models on Tabular Data

Despite the wide use of explainability techniques to attempt to understand the behavior of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the generated explanations may not always be reliable. An explanation can appear plausible to humans but fail to capture the internal reasoning of a model, particularly when dealing with complex tabular data. This paper studies the trustworthiness of local explainability techniques when applied to complex tabular classification tasks, considering evaluated metrics for three main properties: faithfulness to the model's predictions, robustness to input data variations, and complexity of the explanation itself. A benchmark was performed for Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), Kernel SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), and Feature Ablation techniques, across 32 datasets and different types of machine learning models. Model performance ranges were analyzed to identify two groups: consensus-correct, which are samples that all models predicted correctly, and consensus-wrong, samples that all models predicted incorrectly. The obtained results demonstrate that that the explanations are not always correlated with a model's predictive performance. Instead, dataset complexity and feature distributions seem to be the main factors affecting explanation quality and reliability.

Tomás Pereira, João Vitorino, Eva Maia +1

GECAD, ISEP, Polytechnic of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Feature Attribution Explainable Artificial Intelligence Tabular Classification Tabular ML Explainability Evaluation

May 26, 2026cs.LG

EEG-FM-Audit: A Systematic Evaluation and Analysis Pipeline for EEG Foundation Models

Large EEG Foundation Models (FMs) have shown great potential for decoding EEG signals across diverse cognitive tasks. However, existing EEG-FM studies exhibit three critical limitations: opaque supervised baseline tuning, unverified contributions of complex learning paradigms, and a lack of transparency in model decision-making. To address these, we propose EEG-FM-Audit, a comprehensive evaluation and analysis pipeline designed to systematize the assessment of EEG-FMs. EEG-FM-Audit consists of three primary components: (1) an ASHA-driven benchmarking protocol that ensures fair comparisons by transparently optimizing supervised baselines; (2) paradigm-level ablation studies to evaluate the effectiveness of learning paradigms in FMs; and (3) a neurophysiological probing (NPP) framework, which explores whether FMs leverage valid temporal, spatial, and spectral EEG properties. We apply EEG-FM-Audit to four state-of-the-art EEG-FMs and five representative supervised models across three public datasets. Our results reveal that properly tuned supervised baselines can match or outperform advanced FMs, despite requiring significantly fewer parameters. Furthermore, we find that the effectiveness of learning paradigms of FMs is highly dependent on dataset scale and architecture. Finally, NPP analysis demonstrates how FMs rely on specific physiological features, establishing a framework for more interpretable neural decoding.

Xianheng Wang, Yige Yang, Damien Coyle

Bath Institute for the Augmented Human University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY · Department of Computer Science University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY

EEG Decoding Explainability Evaluation EEG Foundation Models

May 26, 2026cs.CL

Quality Without Usefulness: LLM-Generated XAI Narratives as Trust Heuristics Rather Than Decision Aids

Prior work shows that Large Language Models (LLMs) can transform Explainable AI (XAI) outputs into Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) that score highly on quality metrics such as plausibility, coherence, and comprehensibility. But does explanation quality translate to practical usefulness? We investigate this question in a time-series energy forecasting domain through five controlled experiments (2,730 judgments across 60 test instances), each operationalising a distinct facet of usefulness studied in the XAI literature. Holding NLE quality constant at the high levels established by a prior factorial study, we find that NLEs do not improve task accuracy on any of the five tasks, while inflating self-reported confidence. A placebic control shows that this confidence boost is driven by text presence rather than content. In an out-of-distribution detection task, NLEs reduce the LLM judge's ability to flag unreliable predictions, providing false reassurance that masks model failure. We characterise these findings as the Quality-Usefulness Gap and argue that evaluation of the XAI-to-NLE pipeline must extend beyond text-quality metrics to downstream task performance.

Fabian Lukassen, Jan Herrmann, Christoph Weisser +3

University of Göttingen · BASF SE · Hochschule Bielefeld +1

LLM Evaluation Explainable Artificial Intelligence Explainability Evaluation Explanation Evaluation

May 23, 2026cs.LG

Building Better Activation Oracles

Activation Oracles (AOs) are promising methods for interpreting residual stream activations. However, current AOs face important issues, such as hallucinations and vagueness. Additionally, text-inversion confounds make them hard to evaluate. To this end, we improve the Activation Oracle (AO) training regime in four ways: training on on-policy rollouts, improving the conversational dataset, feeding more layers and an improvement to the injection formula. The capability improvements are marginal, but quality of life improvements are quite substantial. In addition, we open source the first comprehensive evaluation suite for AO quality, which we call AObench. Overall, we hope that our work sets a foundation that helps improve AOs and other models in the paradigm of scalable, end-to-end interpretability.

Jan Bauer, Celeste De Schamphelaere, Adam Karvonen +2

MATS · Gatsby Unit, UCL · Ghent University +2

LLM Interpretability Mechanistic Interpretability Explainability Evaluation

May 22, 2026cs.HC

Human Decision-Making with Persuasive and Narrative LLM Explanations

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to aid and improve human decision-making in classification tasks, not only by providing fairly accurate predictions, but also in their ability to generate cogent narrative explanations of those predictions. Prior work has demonstrated that people generally find AI narrative explanations to be understandable, trustworthy, and convincing for changing beliefs and opinions; however, less is known about the impact of narrative explanations on objective human decision-making performance. Here we conduct a large-scale human behavioral experiment to evaluate decision-making performance with LLM-generated narrative explanations of varying persuasiveness. We found the degree of persuasiveness, or lack thereof, for LLM-based explanations did not meaningfully impact decision accuracy over a simple AI prediction alone, in agreement with typical results with explainable AI based on feature importance. We found evidence that narratives increased reliance on AI, but both when the AI prediction was correct and incorrect. Exploratory analyses also indicated that the more persuasive narratives may have had a detrimental effect on decision response times and the ability to discriminate between a correct and incorrect AI prediction. Overall, this work indicates that including narrative explanations with AI predictions may involve tradeoffs for decision-making performance, and more work is needed to determine how and when narrative explanations impact human decision-making.

Laura R. Marusich, Mary Grace Kozuch Dhooghe, Jonathan Z. Bakdash +1

DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory Adelphi, MD 20783 · University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, TX 75080 · Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24060

Explainable Artificial Intelligence Human-AI Decision Making Explainability Evaluation

May 21, 2026cs.LG

Stabilising Explainability Fragility in Cybersecurity AI: The Impact and Mitigation of Multicollinearity in Public Benchmark Datasets

This paper investigates a unexplored yet impactful vulnerability in AI explainability used in intrusion detection (IDS): multicollinearity-induced instability. Despite extensive reliance on post-hoc explainability tools such as SHAP or LIME, the impact of correlated features on explanation robustness is not evaluated. We introduce a formal theorem stating that multicollinearity inflates attribution variance. This demonstrates that explanations and feature importances are non-identifiable under multicollinearity. A suite of comprehensive experiments validates the theorem on a representative benchmark dataset, UNSW-NB15. Four widely used families of models are evaluated, including linear, tree-based, kernel, and neural, across full and pruned feature sets based on VIF and correlation thresholding. We propose the novel metric of Explanability Fragility Score and two novel methods to mitigate it with variable integration complexity. CAA-Filtering focuses on stabilising explanations by grouping attributions of trained models. SHARP is a novel training-time regularisation framework that penalises attribution instability, enabling controllable and monotonic improvement of explainability stability. The findings support stable predictive performance, using Kendall's τ to quantify instability across bootstrapped explanations. This work has direct implications for the trustworthiness and reproducibility of XAI in security-critical contexts, and motivates incorporating multicollinearity mitigations into the IDS pipelines, providing a set of guidelines for practitioners.

Ioannis J. Vourganas, Anna Lito Michala

Netrity Ltd, Glasgow, UK · University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

SHAP Feature Attribution Explainability Evaluation

May 21, 2026cs.CV

The Neglected Baseline in Model Interpretation

We observe that existing model interpretation methods generally ignore the baseline, and such neglect often results in imprecise or even incorrect interpretation. In this paper, we reformulate the task of model interpretation and the interpretation principles for model interpretation results to demonstrate the importance of the baseline. For the first time, we unify gradient-based methods, Integrated Gradients (IG), and Taylor expansion, clarify the relationships among the three, and explicitly identify the corresponding baseline for each method. This may have a significant impact on the further performance improvement of some gradient-based schemes. On this basis, we analyze the flaws and errors in related model interpretation methods (IG, LayerCAM, ODAM, Difference Map). We advocate evaluating the quality of model interpretation results precisely through the attribution error between the attribution result and the attribution target, rather than adopting flawed evaluation methods, such as those based on marginal-effect or the assumption of perfect model performance. We revise IG and develope a model interpretation method with a clear and reasonable baseline, achieving better results. Our method supports model interpretation based on features from any layer. Interpretation based on features from different layers are all reasonable, and the differences among these results reflect varying degrees of feature extraction at different feature extraction stages.

Yongjin Cui, Xiaohui Fan

Zhejiang University

Gradient-Based Attribution Integrated Gradients Feature Attribution Neural Network Interpretability Explainability Evaluation

May 21, 2026cs.AI

Measuring Cross-Modal Synergy: A Benchmark for VLM Explainability

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) map complex visual inputs to semantic spaces, but interpreting the cross-modal reasoning of VLMs currently relies on post-hoc explainers evaluated via unimodal perturbation metrics. We expose a limitation in this paradigm: because multimodal datasets contain language priors and modality biases, VLMs frequently exhibit cross-modal redundancy, allowing them to answer visual queries using text alone. Consequently, unimodal metrics penalize faithful explainers, triggering an evaluation collapse where visual and textual rankings fundamentally contradict each other. %(Kendall's

τ= -0.06

). To resolve this, we introduce Synergistic Faithfulness (

\mathcal{F}_{syn}

), a scalable metric rooted in the Shapley Interaction Index that strictly isolates the joint Harsanyi dividend between modalities, serving as a highly accurate surrogate (

ρ= 0.92

) while achieving a

24\times

computational speedup. Evaluating 8 distinct XAI methods across 3 VLM architectures and 3 benchmark datasets, reveals that explainers proposed for VLMs heavily over-index on visual salience and significantly underperform adapted attention-based methods in capturing true cross-modal synergy. By decoupling visual plausibility from cross-modal faithfulness, this work provides a rigorous evaluation framework required to safely audit VLM reasoning in high-stakes deployments.

Joël Roman Ky, Salah Ghamizi, Maxime Cordy

University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg · Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH), Luxembourg

VLM Interpretability Shapley Value Attribution Multimodal Model Interpretability Explainability Evaluation Multimodal Understanding

May 21, 2026cs.LG

Geometry-Adaptive Explainer for Faithful Dictionary-Based Interpretability under Distribution Shift

Mechanistic interpretability aims to explain a model's behavior by identifying causally responsible internal structures. Dictionary-based explainers such as sparse autoencoders and transcoders are a primary tool, but their faithfulness under out-of-distribution (OOD) shift has received little systematic attention. We show that distribution shift rotates the subspace that the model actively uses, misaligning the explainer's dictionary trained on in-distribution (ID) activations. We formalize this misalignment as the faithfulness gap, a geometric distance between the ID dictionary and the OOD-active subspace, and show that it controls OOD faithfulness degradation. To reduce this gap, we propose the Geometry-Adaptive Explainer (GAE), which realigns the explainer's dictionary with the OOD-active subspace while preserving the original feature structure. This requires only unlabeled OOD activations and no gradient updates. We prove that GAE improves over the unadapted ID explainer, with excess loss bounded quadratically by the second-moment shift. Empirically, GAE even matches or surpasses all training-based baselines in causal faithfulness across multiple models and OOD settings.

Sungjun Lim, Heedong Kim, Andrew Lee +1

aYonsei University · bHarvard University

Distribution Shift Robustness OOD Generalization Mechanistic Interpretability Causal Interpretability Explainability Evaluation

May 20, 2026cs.CL

Interpretable Discriminative Text Representations via Agreement and Label Disentanglement

Interpretable text representations should expose coordinates that are not only predictive, but also meaningful enough for independent auditors to apply. Existing discriminative representations often use anonymous embedding directions, while concept-bottleneck and LLM-assisted methods attach natural-language names to features without ensuring that those definitions are reproducible or distinct from the target label. We propose an operational criterion for interpretable discriminative text representations: each coordinate should satisfy conceptual clarity, measured by chance-adjusted agreement between independent annotators applying the feature definition, and label disentanglement, meaning the feature should not merely paraphrase the prediction target. We instantiate this criterion in LLM-assisted Feature Discovery (LFD), an iterative method that proposes lexical and semantic features from contrastive outcome-opposed text pairs, screens candidates using cross-LLM Cohen's

κ

, and selects features by residual held-out predictive gain. A stylized analysis connects the

κ

screen to a per-feature annotation-noise bound, formalizing agreement as a reliability check. Across ten text-classification tasks spanning seven corpora, LFD matches the predictive performance of a strong text bottleneck baseline while producing substantially clearer and less label-entangled features. Human audits with 232 raters show that LFD features achieve higher human--human and human--LLM agreement than baseline concepts, and raters consistently judge them as less label-leaking. These results suggest that agreement-tested, label-disentangled coordinates provide a practical auditability standard for interpretable text classification.

Tong Wang, Yiqing Xu, Leo Yang Yang

School of Management Yale University New Haven, CT, US, 06511 · Department of Accountancy, Economics and Finance Hong Kong Baptist University Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR

Disentangled Representation Learning Interpretable ML Text Classification Explainability Evaluation

May 19, 2026cs.LG

Can Conversational XAI Improve User Performance? An Experimental Study

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques aim to provide insights into predictive models and enhance user performance, yet they often fall short of these expectations. Conversational XAI assistants promise to overcome such limitations, but empirical evidence on their impact on objective performance measures remains limited. We propose an experimental design for evaluating explanation assistance through prediction accuracy, model understanding, and error identification. Using an explainable-by-design prediction model, we create conditions where users can outperform the model by identifying and compensating for systematic errors. We compare conversational assistance against Q&A-based assistance to assess which better supports users in working with model explanations. Preliminary results from testing our experimental design show that participants (N=42) in both treatments significantly outperformed the model but reveal no performance differences between assistance types and modest engagement overall. These findings inform refinements for our planned full study, including enhanced engagement interventions and investigation of the mechanisms driving improved predictions.

Sven Kruschel, Julian Rosenberger, Lasse Bohlen +2

TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany · University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

Explainable Artificial Intelligence Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Explainability Evaluation Human-AI Collaboration

May 19, 2026cs.CV

A Framework for Evaluating Zero-Shot Image Generation in Concept-based Explainability

Concept-based Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) interprets deep learning models using human-understandable visual features (e.g., textures or object parts) by linking internal representations to class predictions, thereby bridging the gap between low-level image data and high-level semantics. A major challenge, however, is the reliance on large sets of labeled images to represent each concept, which limits scalability. In this work, we investigate the use of zero-shot Text-to-Image (T2I) generative models as a source of synthetic concept datasets for concept-based XAI methods. Specifically, we generate concepts using predefined prompts and evaluate their faithfulness to real ones through four complementary analyses: (1) comparing synthetic vs. real concept images via concept representation similarity; (2) evaluating their intra-similarity by comparing pairs of subsets of the same concept with progressively increasing size; (3) evaluating their performance for downstream explanation tasks using relevant class images; (4) evaluating how removing a concept from tested class images affects explanations of generated concepts. While current T2I generative models promise a shortcut to concept-based XAI, our study highlights challenges and raises open questions about the use of synthetic data generated by zero-shot pipelines in model analyses. The resulting dataset is available at https://github.com/DataSciencePolimi/ZeroShot-T2I-Concepts.

Giacomo Astolfi, Matteo Bianchi, Riccardo Campi +2

Politecnico di Milano, DEIB, Italy

Image Generation Concept-Based Explanations Explainability Evaluation

May 19, 2026cs.LG

A Family of Divergence Measures for Evaluating the Reconstruction Quality of Explainable Ensemble Trees

Validating interpretable surrogate models for ensemble learners requires measuring agreement between the ensemble's internal representation and its surrogate approximation, rather than mere association. Correlation-based approaches are scale-invariant and fail to detect systematic discrepancies in co-occurrence structure. We propose a statistical framework grounded in the agreement-association distinction, centered on the normalized Loss of Interpretability (nLoI). Rooted in the Cressie-Read power divergence family with lambda equal to 2, the nLoI admits a closed-form decomposition into within-node and between-node components, providing a unique diagnostic capability to identify precisely where and why reconstruction fails. The framework incorporates four complementary measures capturing distinct structural facets of approximation quality. A unified permutation testing procedure delivers valid inference for all measures within a single resampling pass. Theoretical properties, including boundedness and symmetry, are established for each metric. Monte Carlo simulations and empirical evaluations confirm exact Type I error control and demonstrate that these measures detect reconstruction fidelity gradients invisible to correlation-based alternatives. The framework is developed and illustrated in the context of Explainable Ensemble Trees (E2Tree), and empirical evaluation on three benchmark datasets illustrates the practical utility of the framework.

Massimo Aria, Agostino Gnasso, Carmela Iorio

Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Naples2026 Federico II, Naples, Italy

Surrogate Modeling Ensemble Learning Explainability Evaluation

May 19, 2026cs.CL

Lost in Interpretation: The Plausibility-Faithfulness Trade-off in Cross-Lingual Explanations

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, 5~~languages, and 2~~multilingual 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

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur · TCG Crest · National University of Singapore

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Faithfulness of Language Model Explanations Cross-Lingual Reasoning in Language Models LLM Interpretability Explainability Evaluation Language Model Auditing

May 18, 2026cs.AI

Learning Quantifiable Visual Explanations Without Ground-Truth

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques are increasingly important for the validation and responsible use of modern deep learning models, but are difficult to evaluate due to the lack of good ground-truth to compare against. We propose a framework that serves as a quantifiable metric for the quality of XAI methods, based on continuous input perturbation. Our metric formally considers the sufficiency and necessity of the attributed information to the model's decision-making, and we illustrate a range of cases where it aligns better with human intuitions of explanation quality than do existing metrics. To exploit the properties of this metric, we also propose a novel XAI method, considering the case where we fine-tune a model using a differentiable approximation of the metric as a supervision signal. The result is an adapter module that can be trained on top of any black-box model to output causal explanations of the model's decision process, without degrading model performance. We show that the explanations generated by this method outperform those of competing XAI techniques according to a number of quantifiable metrics.

Amritpal Singh, Andrey Barsky, Mohamed Ali Souibgui +2

Computer Vision Center, Barcelona, Spain · Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

Perturbation-Based Feature Attribution Causal Interpretability Explainability Evaluation Explanation Evaluation

May 18, 2026cs.HC

Exploring Trust Calibration in XAI - The Impact of Exposing Model Limitations to Lay Users

Trust calibration -- aligning user trust judgment with model capability -- is crucial for safe deployment of explainable AI (XAI), yet is often evaluated via global trust ratings detached from objective performance evidence. We present a preregistered, incentivized between-subject online study (N=418 representative UK sample) on explainable skin-lesion classification that disentangles expectation-setting from experienced performance. Participants completed 15 case evaluations using a fixed XAI panel (malignancy score, reliability score, and saliency map). We systematically manipulated five experimental onboarding conditions varying example-based information and limitation disclosures with five stimulus packages naturally varying observed prediction quality. Calibration was operationalized as the deviation between trust-related judgments (TAIS and case-wise ratings) and objective performance benchmarks for the encountered cases, analysed with hierarchical mixed-effects models. Only limitation disclosure for case-wise measures reliably impacts trust calibration, and short-term experience did not yield progressive calibration. Further, the experienced package of stimuli explained substantially more variance than the experimental manipulation. However, participants were hard-pressed to differentiate between case-wise perceived trust, trustworthiness, and accuracy estimation. We discuss implications for designing limitation communication and for measuring and analysing calibration metrics in XAI evaluations. All study materials and data of this study are publicly available for replication and further academic use.

Alfio Ventura, Tim Katzke, Jan Corazza +1

Research Center Trustworthy Data Science and Security, University Alliance Ruhr, Joseph-von-Fraunhofer-Str. 25, Dortmund, 44227, Germany · University of Duisburg-Essen, Bismarckstraße 120, Duisburg, 47057, Germany · TU Dortmund University, August-Schmidt-Straße 1, Dortmund, 44227, Germany

Trust in AI Explainability Evaluation

May 16, 2026cs.LG

AIM: Adversarial Information Masking for Faithfulness Evaluation of Saliency Maps

Post-hoc saliency methods are widely used to interpret deep neural networks, but their faithfulness is difficult to evaluate reliably. Existing evaluations mask features according to saliency-induced feature ordering and measure performance degradation, but this degradation can be confounded by the masking operator: zero masking may create out-of-distribution artifacts, while interpolation-based masking may preserve residual predictive information. We propose Adversarial Information Masking (AIM), a saliency-guided adversarial feature replacement framework for evaluating both saliency-map faithfulness and masking-operator reliability. AIM replaces selected features with values from an adversarial counterpart of the input and compares degradation under complementary masking orders. We assess reliability using random-attribution bias and stability of explanation-method faithfulness rankings. Experiments on image, audio, and EEG tasks suggest that AIM reduces masking-induced bias compared with zero and interpolation-based masking, while revealing modality-dependent differences between signed and unsigned attributions.

Chia-Ying Hsieh, Hsin-Yuan Fang, Chun-Shu Wei

National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University

Gradient-Based Attribution Saliency Map Evaluation Explainability Evaluation

May 16, 2026cs.CV

Zero-Shot Faithful Textual Explanations via Directional-Derivative Influence on Predictions

Zero-shot textual explanations aim to make image classifiers more transparent by probing their internal representations, without relying on task-specific supervision or LVLMs. However, existing methods often miss the features that truly drive the prediction, resulting in limited \textit{faithfulness} to the evidence underlying the model's decision. To address this, we propose FaithTrace. Motivated by the idea that faithful explanations should describe concepts that strongly influence the prediction, FaithTrace directly measures how much the representation induced by the explanation changes the class logit. We introduce an influence score, computed as the directional derivative of the class logit along the text-induced direction in the classifier's feature space, and use it as a proxy for faithfulness. Moreover, we extend this influence score into quantitative evaluation metrics, helping fill the gap in faithfulness evaluation for textual explanations. Experiments show that FaithTrace yields more faithful explanations than baselines, facilitating a more accurate understanding of the model. The code will be publicly released.

Toshinori Yamauchi, Hiroshi Kera, Kazuhiko Kawamoto

Chiba University · National Institute of Informatics

Gradient-Based Attribution Neural Network Interpretability Explainable Image Classification Explainability Evaluation