Explainability Evaluation

Deep Neural Networks have become the dominant solution for Autonomous Driving perception, but their opacity conflicts with emerging Trustworthy AI guidelines and complicates safety assurance, debugging, and human oversight. While theoretical frameworks for safe and Explainable AI (XAI) exist, concrete implementations of Trustworthy AI for 3D scene understanding remain scarce. We address this gap by proposing a Trustworthy AI perception module that is remarkably robust, integrates faithful explainability, and calibrated uncertainty estimates. Building on a transformer-based detector, we derive explanation from the attention mechanism at inference time and validate their faithfulness using perturbation-based consistency tests. We further integrate an uncertainty estimation and calibration module, and apply robustness-enhancing training methods. Experiments show faithful saliency behavior, improved robustness, and well-calibrated uncertainty estimates. Finally, we deploy these Trustworthy AI elements in a prototype vehicle and provide an XAI Interface that visualizes documentation artifacts, model uncertainty state, and saliency maps, demonstrating the feasibility of trustworthy perception monitoring in real time. Supplementary materials are available at https://tillbeemelmanns.github.io/trustworthy_ai/ .

Automated machine learning pipelines increasingly produce models whose predictions must be explained to end users, auditors, and downstream decision systems. The most widely used feature attribution methods (SHAP, Integrated Gradients, LIME) are typically chosen by convention rather than measured fidelity, because rigorous evaluation is impeded by the absence of ground-truth attribution on real data. We propose AGOP-IxG, a fast per-sample attribution method for tabular classifiers that pre-multiplies the per-sample gradient by a top-$K$ rank-truncated Average Gradient Outer Product matrix, and evaluate it against four widely-used baselines on a controlled tabular benchmark designed for AutoML practitioners. In Part 1, we construct three synthetic multi-class tabular tasks (linear, sparse nonlinear, interaction-based) where ground-truth attribution per sample is analytically or numerically derivable, and compare five methods: AGOP-IxG, SHAP (DeepExplainer), Integrated Gradients, InputXGradient, and LIME. AGOP-IxG leads on Spearman rank correlation and noise feature mass on all three synthetic datasets, and on top-$k$ precision on the interaction dataset. Across all settings, AGOP-IxG is approximately $350\times$ to $1{,}650\times$ faster than SHAP. In Part 2, we evaluate global faithfulness on Adult Income and Credit Card Default using the ROAR protocol; the methods cluster within $\sim 1.7\%$ relative AUC, consistent with AGOP-IxG being optimized for per-sample local attribution rather than global feature ranking.

Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) are a fundamental tool for concept-based explainability in deep learning, yet their practical utility is limited by statistical instability. We analyze the stochastic nature of CAVs and the Testing with CAVs (TCAV) method, deriving the distributions of major CAV classes including PatternCAV, FastCAV, and ridge regression-based CAVs. We then identify a fundamental flaw in the standard TCAV score: its reliance on a discontinuous indicator function induces non-decaying variance in critical regimes. To address this, we introduce $α$-TCAV, a generalized framework that replaces the indicator with a parameterized smooth function, yielding a unified probabilistic formulation that subsumes both TCAV and Multi-TCAV. We characterize the induced distributions of sensitivity scores and different TCAV variants, showing that established state-of-the-art choices lack theoretical justification. We provide principled guidance on tuning the parameter in $α$-TCAV -- either to imitate Multi-TCAV at substantially lower computational cost, or to obtain a calibrated Bayes-optimal probabilistic measure of a concept's influence. Finally, our analysis yields practical recommendations that challenge established routines: most notably, allocating the full sampling budget to a single CAV rather than splitting it across several.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making domains such as loan approvals, hiring, and recidivism predictions. While existing fairness metrics (e.g., statistical parity, equal opportunity) effectively quantify outcome-oriented disparities, they offer limited insight into the procedure or explanation behind biased decisions. To address this gap, we propose Group-level Explanation Stability Disparity (GESD), a \textit{procedural-oriented} fairness metric that measures disparities in the stability, robustness, and sensitivity of model explanations across different subgroups in a protected category. %GESD is explainer-agnostic, model-agnostic, and extends the scope of fairness analyses to the level of explainability. We further integrate GESD into a multi-objective optimization framework that jointly optimizes for utility, outcome-based fairness, and explanation-based fairness called FEU (Fairness--Explainability--Utility). Empirical results on multiple benchmark datasets show that GESD effectively captures group-wise discrepancies in explanation quality, and that FEU improves both utility and fairness over state-of-the-art methods. By bridging outcome-based and explanation-based fairness, GESD offers a comprehensive tool for diagnosing and mitigating bias in predictive modeling. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub {\hyperlink{https://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD}{https://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD}}

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have advanced significantly in handling graph-structured data, but a comprehensive framework for evaluating explainability remains lacking. Existing evaluation frameworks primarily involve post-hoc explanations, and operate in the setting where multiple methods generate a suite of explanations for a single model. This makes comparison of explanations across models difficult. Evaluation of inherently interpretable models often targets a specific aspect of interpretability relevant to the model, but remains underdeveloped in terms of generating insight across a suite of measures. We introduce AIM, a comprehensive framework that addresses these limitations by measuring Accuracy, Instance-level explanations, and Model-level explanations. AIM is formulated with minimal constraints to enhance flexibility and facilitate broad applicability. Here, we use AIM in a pipeline, extracting explanations from inherently interpretable GNNs such as graph kernel networks (GKNs) and prototype networks (PNs), evaluating these explanations with AIM, identifying their limitations and obtaining insights to their characteristics. Taking GKNs as a case study, we show how the insights obtained from AIM can be used to develop an updated model, xGKN, that maintains high accuracy while demonstrating improved explainability. Our approach aims to advance the field of Explainable AI (XAI) for GNNs, providing more robust and practical solutions for understanding and improving complex models.

Class attribution maps (CAMs) provide local explanations for the decisions of convolutional neural networks. While widely used in practice, the evaluation of CAMs remains challenging due to the lack of ground-truth explanations, making it difficult to evaluate the soundness of existing metrics. Independently, most commonly used CAM methods produce low-resolution attribution maps, which limits their usefulness for detailed interpretability. To address the evaluation challenge, we introduce a synthetic dataset with ground-truth attributions that enables a rigorous comparison of CAM evaluation metrics. Using this dataset, we analyze existing metrics and propose ARCC, a new composite metric that more reliably identifies faithful explanations. To address the low resolution issue, we introduce RefineCAM, a method that produces high-resolution attribution maps by aggregating CAMs across multiple network layers. Our results show that RefineCAM consistently outperforms existing methods according to the proposed evaluation.

Industrial visual inspection systems increasingly rely on deep classifiers whose heatmap explanations may appear visually plausible while failing to identify the image regions that actually drive model decisions. This paper operationalizes an architecture-aware explanation audit protocol grounded in the native-readout hypothesis: the perturbation-based faithfulness of an explanation method is bounded by its structural distance from the model's native decision mechanism. On WM-811K wafer maps (9 classes, 172k images) under a three-seed zero-fill perturbation protocol, ViT-Tiny + Attention Rollout attains Deletion AUC 0.211 against 0.432-0.525 for Swin-Tiny / ResNet18+CBAM / DenseNet121 + Grad-CAM (abs(Cohen's d) > 1.1), despite lower classification accuracy. Swin-Tiny disentangles architecture family from readout structure: despite being a Transformer, its spatial feature-map hierarchy makes it Grad-CAM compatible, showing that the operative factor is readout structure rather than architecture family. A model-agnostic control (RISE) compresses all families to Deletion AUC about 0.1, indicating the gap arises from the explainer pathway; notably, RISE outperforms all native methods, so native readout is a compatibility principle rather than an optimality guarantee. A blur-fill sensitivity analysis shows that the family ordering reverses under a different perturbation baseline, reinforcing that faithfulness rankings are joint properties of (model, explainer, perturbation operator) triples. An exploratory boundary-condition study on MVTec AD (pretrained models) indicates that audit results are dataset/task dependent and identifies conditions requiring qualification. The protocol yields actionable guidance: explanation pathways should be co-designed with model architectures based on readout structure, and deployed heatmaps should be accompanied by quantitative faithfulness metrics.

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are now standard tools for decomposing language model activations into interpretable features, and automated interpretability pipelines routinely assign each feature a short natural-language explanation. Existing critiques of this practice focus on polysemanticity -- one feature with many meanings -- or on whether explanations predict activations. We identify a complementary, structurally distinct problem we call descriptive collision: many distinct SAE features admit the same explanation. Reanalyzing the largest publicly-available dataset of human-annotated SAE features (Marks et al., 2025), comprising 722 annotated features across Gemma 2 2B and Pythia 70M, we find that the mean annotation string is reused across 3.07 features; 82.1% of features share their annotation with at least one other feature; and the single most common annotation string ("plural nouns") labels 101 distinct features spanning 18 layers and four model components. Information-theoretically, the average annotation resolves only 70% of feature identity. We formalize a property called discrimination, prove that current detection-style auto-interpretability scoring is invariant to collision, and propose two complementary corrective metrics -- collision-adjusted detection and discrimination scoring -- that explicitly penalize explanations that fail to distinguish a feature from its neighbors. The collision problem is independent of, and additive with, previously identified failure modes of auto-interpretability; ignoring it inflates reported feature interpretability by a quantity equal to roughly one-third of the bits required to identify a feature.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate high-level diverse phenomena without explicitly programmed rules. This capability has led to their adoption within different agent-based models (ABMs) and social simulations. Recent studies investigate their ability to generate different phenomena of interest, for example, human behavior on social media platforms or alien behavior in game-theoretic scenarios. However, capability, prediction, and explanation are different--drawing from the philosophy of science and mechanisms literature, explanation requires showing, to some degree, how a phenomenon is produced by related organized entities and activities. For modelers, describing the characteristics of an experiment or whether a simulation provides progress in capability (or explanation), can be difficult without being grounded in potentially distant research areas. We integrate recent work on LLM-ABMs with contemporary philosophy of science literature and use it to operationalize a definition of 'plausibility' in a four-level scale. Our scale separates the evaluation of a model's generative sufficiency (ability to reproduce a phenomenon) from its mechanistic plausibility (how the phenomenon could be produced), and clarifies the distinct roles of different models, such as predictive and explanatory ones. We introduce this as the Mechanism Plausibility Scale.

Financial institutions increasingly require AI explanations that are persistent, cross-validated across methods, and conversationally accessible to human decision-makers. We present an architecture for human-centered explainable AI in financial sentiment analysis that combines three contributions. First, we treat XAI artifacts -- LIME feature attributions, occlusion-based word importance scores, and saliency heatmaps -- as persistent, searchable objects in distributed S3-compatible storage with structured metadata and natural-language summaries, enabling semantic retrieval over explanation history and automatic index reconstruction after system failures. Second, we enable multi-method explanation triangulation, where a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) assistant compares and synthesizes results from multiple XAI methods applied to the same prediction, allowing users to assess explanation robustness through natural-language dialogue. Third, we evaluate the faithfulness of generated explanations using automated checks over grounding completeness, hallucinated claims, and method-attribution behavior. We demonstrate the architecture on an EXTRA-BRAIN financial sentiment analysis pipeline using FinBERT predictions and present evaluation results showing that constrained prompting reduces hallucination rate by 36% and increases method-attribution citations by 73% compared to naive prompting. We discuss implications for trustworthy, human-centered AI services in regulated financial environments.

Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks. Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact, raising questions about its relevance and utility. This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability--the extent to which insights enable concrete decisions and interventions beyond interpretability research itself. We define actionable interpretability along two dimensions--concreteness and validation--and analyze the barriers currently preventing real-world impact. To address these barriers, we identify five domains where interpretability offers unique leverage and present a framework for actionable interpretability with evaluation criteria aligned with practical outcomes. Our goal is not to downplay exploratory research, but to establish actionability as a core objective of interpretability research.

Machine learning has become increasingly prevalent in football performance analysis, yet most studies prioritize predictive accuracy while implicitly assuming that learned performance determinants and their interpretations are transferable across competition levels. Whether interpretability remains reliable under domain shift-from elite to university football remains largely unexplored. This study investigates whether performance determinants learned from elite competitions are structurally transferable to university-level football and whether their interpretations remain robust under domain shift. Models were trained on large-scale event data from the top five European leagues and applied to university football data from National Tsing Hua University (NTHU) using an identical feature space. Random Forest and Multilayer Perceptron models were interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Counterfactual Impact Score (CIS). Across five experiments, elite football exhibited a stable and consistent hierarchy of performance determinants across leagues, models, and explanation methods. In contrast, NTHU university football showed substantial reordering of key indicators, reduced explanation stability, weaker structural agreement with elite domains, and increased sensitivity to explanation method. These findings suggest that interpretability robustness is domain-dependent. Rather than reflecting methodological limitations alone, instability in explanations under domain shift may serve as a diagnostic signal of structural ambiguity in the target domain.

TCAV (Testing with Concept Activation Vectors) is an interpretability method that assesses the alignment between the internal representations of a trained neural network and human-understandable, high-level concepts. Though effective, TCAV suffers from significant computational overhead, inter-layer disagreement of TCAV scores, and statistical instability. This work takes a step toward addressing these challenges by introducing E-TCAV, a framework for efficient approximation of TCAV scores, which is based on extensive investigation into three key aspects of the TCAV methodology: 1) the effect of latent classifiers on the stability of TCAV scores, 2) the inter-layer agreement of TCAV scores, and 3) the use of the penultimate layer as a fast proxy for earlier layers for TCAV computation. To ensure a solid foundation for E-TCAV, we conduct extensive evaluations across four different architectures and five datasets, encompassing problems from both computer vision and natural language domains. Our results show that the layers in the final block of the neural network strongly agree with the penultimate layer in terms of the TCAV scores, and the commonly observed variance of the TCAV scores can be attributed to the choice of the latent classifier. Leveraging this inter-layer agreement and the degeneracy of directional sensitivities at the penultimate layer, E-TCAV guarantees linearly scaling speed-ups with respect to the network's size and the number of evaluation samples, marking a step towards efficient model debugging and real-time concept-guided training.

Artificial intelligence models are increasingly scaled to improve predictive accuracy, yet it remains unclear whether scale improves the quality of post-hoc explanations. We investigate this relationship by evaluating 11 computer vision models representing increasing levels of depth and complexity within the ResNet, DenseNet, and Vision Transformer families, trained from scratch or pretrained, across three image datasets with ground-truth segmentation masks. For each model, we generate explanations using five post-hoc explainable AI methods and quantify mask alignment using two localisation metrics: Relevance Rank Accuracy (Arras et al., 2022) and the proposed Dual-Polarity Precision, which measures positive attributions inside the class mask and negative attributions outside it. Across datasets and methods, increasing architectural depth and parameter count does not improve explanation quality in most statistical comparisons, and smaller models often match or exceed deeper variants. While pretraining typically improves predictive performance and increases the dependence of explanations on learned weights, it does not consistently increase localisation scores. We also observe scenarios in which models achieve strong predictive performance while localisation precision is near zero, suggesting that performance metrics alone may not indicate whether predictions are based on the annotated regions. These results indicate that larger models do not reliably provide higher-quality explanations, and that explainability should therefore be assessed explicitly during model selection for safety-sensitive deployments.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being incorporated into scientific research workflows with the potential to enhance efficiency in tasks such as document analysis, question answering (Q&A), and literature search. However, system outputs are often difficult to verify, lack transparency in their generation and remain prone to errors. Suitable benchmarks are needed to document and evaluate arising issues. Nevertheless, existing benchmarking approaches are not adequately capturing human-centered criteria such as usability, interpretability, and integration into research workflows. To address this gap, the present work proposes and applies a benchmarking framework combining human-centered and computer-centered metrics to evaluate AI-based Q&A and literature review tools for research use. The findings suggest that Q&A tools can offer valuable overviews and generally accurate summaries; however, they are not always reliable for precise information extraction. Explainable AI (xAI) accuracy was particularly low, meaning highlighted source passages frequently failed to correspond to generated answers. This shifted the burden of validation back onto the researcher. Literature review tools supported exploratory searches but showed low reproducibility, limited transparency regarding chosen sources and databases, and inconsistent source quality, making them unsuitable for systematic reviews. A comparison of these tool groups reveals a similar pattern: while AI tools can enhance efficiency in the early stages of the research workflow and shallow tasks, their outputs still require human verification. The findings underscore the importance of explainability features to enhance transparency, verification efficiency and careful integration of AI tools into researchers' workflows. Further, human-centered evaluation remains an important concern to ensure practical applicability.

Deep neural networks for medical image diagnosis often achieve high predictive accuracy while relying on spurious or clinically irrelevant visual cues, limiting their trustworthiness in practice. Post-hoc explanation methods are widely used to visualize model decisions in the form of saliency maps; however, these explanations do not influence how models learn during training, allowing non-causal or confounding features to persist. This motivates the incorporation of explanation supervision directly into the training objective to guide model attention toward clinically meaningful regions and promote clinically grounded decision-making. This paper presents a systematic approach to integrate explanation loss into model training and analyzes how different explanation loss designs and supervision strengths influence both predictive performance and spatial faithfulness of explanations. To quantitatively assess interpretability, two complementary explanation performance metrics-annotation coverage and saliency precision-are introduced, enabling rigorous evaluation beyond qualitative visualization. Our experimental results reveal a clear trade-off between explanation quality and explanation loss coefficients. Furthermore, quantitative statistical analysis yields consistently improved explanation alignment while maintaining comparable accuracy. Experiments were conducted on annotated chest X-ray datasets; however, the proposed framework is applicable to a broad range of annotated biomedical imaging modalities. Overall, these findings demonstrate that explanation supervision is not a monolithic design choice and provide practical guidance for incorporating explanation loss into training objectives under noisy clinical annotations.

Machine learning algorithms are being used in high-stakes decisions, including those in criminal justice, healthcare, credit, and employment. The research community has responded with two largely independent research fields: \emph{algorithmic fairness}, which targets equitable outcomes, and \emph{explainable AI} (XAI), which targets interpretable reasoning. This survey identifies and maps a novel blind spot at their intersection, which is a model that can satisfy every standard fairness criterion in its outputs while being profoundly unfair in its \emph{reasoning process}. We refer to this as the procedural bias, and mitigating it requires treating the fairness of explanations as a distinct object of scientific study. To our knowledge, we provide the first unified theoretical and literature review of this emerging field and elucidate the drawbacks of post-hoc explainers in certifying explanation fairness. Our central contribution is a \emph{conditional invariance framework} formalizing explanation fairness as the requirement that explanations should be indifferent regardless of the protected attributes $P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = a) = P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = b)$ for all task-relevant $x$, a single principle from which all existing explanation fairness metrics emerge as partial operationalizations. We introduce a seven-dimensional taxonomy, identify three generative mechanisms of explanation inequity (representation-driven, explanation-model mismatch, actionability-driven), and propose a canonical six-step evaluation workflow for operationalizing explanation fairness audits in practice.

Mechanistic interpretability aims to explain neural model behaviour by reverse-engineering learned computational structure into human-understandable components. Without a formal framework, however, mechanistic explanations cannot be objectively verified, compared, or composed. We introduce compositional interpretability, a category-theoretic framework grounded in the principles of compositionality and minimum description length. Compositional interpretations are pairs of syntactic and semantic mappings that must commute to enforce consistency between a model's decomposition and its observed behaviour. We deconstruct explanation quality into measures of faithfulness and complexity to cast interpretability as a constrained optimisation problem, and introduce compressive refinement to systematically restructure models into simpler parts without altering their function. Finally, we derive a parsimony criterion under which syntactic compression theoretically guarantees more concise, human-aligned explanations. Our framework situates prominent mechanistic methods as subclasses of refinement, and clarifies why their compressibility heuristics tend to align with human interpretability. Our work provides a measurable, optimisable blueprint for automating the discovery and evaluation of mechanistic explanations.

Explaining how to get from A to B can be challenging. It requires mentally simulating what the listener will do based on what they are told. To capture this process, we propose a computational model that converts utterances into action plans: a large language model translates an explanation into program-like guidance (a policy prior and value map), and a planning agent executes it under partial observability. We score explanations by the efficiency and reliability of the resulting paths, penalizing replanning. Across four preregistered experiments, we collect a corpus of 1,200 explanations over 24 maps, elicit helpfulness judgments, measure baseline navigation, and test behavior with explanations of differing quality. Higher-scored explanations are judged more helpful and improve navigation: participants with explanations outperform those without, and high-scoring explanations help more than low-scoring ones. Together, these results show procedural explanation as utility-guided communication shaped by how language can be grounded into action under uncertainty.

Mechanistic interpretability papers increasingly use causal vocabulary: circuits, mediators, causal abstraction, monosemanticity. Such claims require explicit identification assumptions. A purposive audit of 10 papers across four methodological strands finds no dedicated identification-assumptions section and a recurring pattern: validation metrics such as faithfulness, completeness, monosemanticity, alignment, or ablation effects are reported as causal support without stating the assumptions that make them identifying. A two-human-coder audit on $n=30$ reproduces the direction of the main finding: dedicated identification sections are absent, and validation-metric substitution is common, though exact Dim B/D counts are coding-rule sensitive. The paper proposes a disclosure norm: state whether the claim is causal, name the identification strategy, enumerate assumptions, stress at least one, and explain how conclusions shift if assumptions fail. Validation is not identification.

The misuse of generative AI in online disinformation campaigns highlights the urgent need for transparent and explainable detection systems. In this work, we investigate how detectors for AI-generated images can be more effective in providing human-understandable explanations for their predictions. To this end, we develop a suite of detectors with various architectures and fine-tuning strategies, trained on our large-scale photorealistic fake image dataset, AIText2Image, and assess their performance on state-of-the-art text-to-image AI generators. We integrate 16 different explainable AI (XAI) methods into our detection framework, and the visual explanations are comprehensively refined and evaluated through a novel approach that prioritizes human understanding of AI-generated images, using both textual and visual responses collected from a survey of 100 participants. This framework offers insights into visual-language cues in fake image detection and into the clarity of XAI methods from a human perspective, measuring the alignment of XAI outputs with human preferences.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly rec ognized as essential for deploying machine learning systems in safety critical environments. In Automatic Target Recognition (ATR), where models operate on image, video, radar, and multisensor data, high pre dictive performance alone is insufficient. Model decisions must also be interpretable, reliable, and suitable for validation. This paper presents a structured evaluation of explainability methods in the context of safety-critical ATR systems: We identify major XAI paradigms, including saliency-based, attention-based, and surrogate ap proaches, as well as recent detection-aware extensions. Based on this, we formalize explainability as an assurance-oriented assessment problem, introduce a taxonomy, and assess these methods with respect to four key dimensions: interpretability, robustness, vulnerability to manipula tion, and suitability for validation and verification. The analysis identifies systematic limitations of current post-hoc explanation methods. In par ticular, we derive critical failure modes such as spurious explanations, instability under perturbations, and overtrust induced by visually con vincing outputs. These findings indicate that widely used XAI techniques may be insufficient for safety-critical deployment. Finally, we discuss implications for ATR systems and outline directions toward more robust, causally grounded, and physically informed explain ability methods. Our results emphasize the need to move beyond visually plausible explanations toward approaches that support reliable decision making and system-level assurance.

Electrospinning is a highly sensitive fabrication process in which small variations in operating parameters can significantly influence fiber morphology and material performance. Machine learning (ML) methods are increasingly employed to model these process-structure relationships and to identify the relative importance of processing variables. However, most existing studies rely on a single ML model, implicitly assuming that the resulting feature importance is robust and reproducible. In this study, the consistency of feature importance across multiple ML model families was systematically evaluated using a curated dataset of 96 polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) electrospinning experiments. Twenty-one ML models representing linear, tree-based, kernel-based, neural network, and instance-based approaches were trained and compared. To provide a unified interpretability framework, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values were used to calculate feature importance consistently across all models. A rank-based statistical analysis was then performed to quantify inter-model agreement and assess the robustness of parameter rankings. The results demonstrate that predictive performance and interpretive reliability are fundamentally distinct properties. Although several models achieved comparable predictive accuracy, substantial differences were observed in their feature importance rankings. Solution concentration emerged as the most robust and consistently influential parameter (variability = 0), whereas flow rate and applied voltage exhibited high ranking variability (variability > 0.9), indicating strong model dependence. These findings suggest that feature importance derived from a single ML model may be unreliable, particularly for small experimental datasets, and highlight the importance of cross-model validation for achieving trustworthy interpretation in ML-assisted electrospinning research.

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.

Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) achieve strong performance on node classification tasks but remain difficult to interpret, particularly with respect to which input features drive their predictions. Existing global GNN explainers operate at the structural level identifying recurring subgraph motifs, but none explain model behaviour globally at the level of input node attributes. We propose GRAFT, a posthoc global explanation framework that identifies class-level feature importance profiles for GNNs. The method combines diversity-guided exemplar selection, Integrated Gradients-based attribution, and aggregation to construct a global view of feature influence for each class, which can be further expressed as concise natural language rules using a large language model with self-refinement. We evaluate GRAFT across multiple datasets, architectures, and experimental settings, demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing model-relevant features, supporting bias analysis, and enabling feature-efficient transfer learning. In addition, we introduce a structured human evaluation protocol to assess the interpretability of generated rules along dimensions such as accuracy and usefulness. Our results suggest that GRAFT provides a practical and interpretable approach for analysing feature-level behaviour in GNNs, bridging quantitative attribution with human-understandable explanations.

We present a method for diagnosing interpretation in neural networks by identifying an input subspace where a proposed interpretation is highly faithful. Our method is particularly useful for causal-abstraction-style interpretability, where a high-level causal hypothesis is evaluated by interchange interventions. Rather than treating interchange intervention accuracy as a single global summary, we refine this framework by partitioning the input space into well-interpreted and under-interpreted regions according to pairwise interchange-intervention behavior. This turns causal abstraction from a purely global evaluation into a more diagnostic tool: it not only measures whether an interpretation works, but also reveals where it works, where it fails, and what distinguishes the two cases. This diagnostic view also provides practical heuristics for improving interpretations. By analyzing the structure of the well-interpreted and under-interpreted regions, we can identify missing distinctions in a high-level hypothesis, discover previously unmodeled intermediate variables, and combine complementary partial interpretations into a stronger one. We instantiate this idea as a simple four-step recipe and show that it yields informative error analyses across multiple causal abstraction settings. In a toy logic task, recursively applying the recipe recovers a high-level hypothesis from scratch. More broadly, our results suggest that partitioning the input space is a useful step toward more precise, constructive, and scalable mechanistic interpretability.

In recent years, several advances have been observed in Deep Learning with surprising results. Models in this area have been increasingly used in numerous applications, including those sensitive to human life, which require clear explanations and justifications. Various explainability methods have been proposed, but not many metrics to evaluate these methods. The most commonly used metric is the Intersection over Union (IoU). However, due to the characteristics of the results of the explainability methods, called saliency maps, which do not have a known shape, we hypothesise that there must be a better metric that allows one to find an explainability method that produces results that best resemble the human perception. We propose using different metrics to assess the similarity between human perception and the explanation saliency maps to find a better metric. An investigation was conducted employing a subset of the Chihuahuas images from ImageNet dataset. Several CAM-based explainability methods were used to generate saliency maps for each chihuahua image. Alignment was measured by applying distance metrics between the bounding box of human annotations and the saliency maps produced by each explainability method. Rankings of the best saliency maps were created using the results of the distance metrics and compared to the ranking obtained using people's choice, collected through crowdsourcing, of the best explanation saliency maps for each selected image. Comparison between rankings was performed using the Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) metric. The results indicate the feasibility of our method to find the explainability method that best resembles human perception. In our experiments, the two metrics that best resemble human perception corresponded to Manhattan and Correlation. Besides, the best explainability methods regarding human perception were LayerCAM, Score-CAM, and IS-CAM.

This position paper argues that LLMs should not yet be credited with decision explanation. This matters because recent work increasingly treats accurate behavioral prediction, plausible rationales, and outcome-conditioned reasoning traces as evidence that LLMs explain why people decide as they do, risking a premature redefinition of what counts as explanatory progress in human decision modeling. We first distinguish three claims with different evidential burdens: decision prediction, rationale generation, and decision explanation. We then argue that the evidence most commonly offered for LLM-based decision accounts directly supports the first two claims, and sometimes explanatory hypothesis generation, but does not distinguish decision explanation from prediction-supportive rationalization. Next, we propose a bridge standard for decision-explanation credit: stronger claims should specify explanatory targets, discriminate against weaker rationalizer alternatives, use target-appropriate process- or intervention-sensitive validation, and bound their scope. We then situate this standard against competing views and related literatures, clarifying why it preserves the value of LLMs as predictors, narrators, and hypothesis generators while resisting premature explanatory credit. We conclude with a principle of credit calibration: LLMs should be credited for the strongest claim their evidence warrants, and no stronger; if adopted, this principle can help turn LLMs from persuasive narrators of decisions into more reliable instruments for discovering, testing, and communicating explanations of human behavior.

The application of computer vision is gradually increasing across various domains. They employ deep learning models with a black-box nature. Without the ability to explain the behavior of neural networks, especially their decision-making processes, it is not possible to recognize their efficiency, predict system failures, or effectively implement them in real-world applications. Due to the inevitable use of deep learning in fully automated driving systems, many methods have been proposed to explain their behavior; however, they suffer from flawed reasoning and unreliable metrics, which have prevented a comprehensive understanding of complex models in autonomous vehicles and hindered the development of truly reliable systems. In this study, we propose a multi-scale attention-based model in which driving decisions are fed into the reasoning component to provide case-specific explanations for each decision simultaneously. For quantitative evaluation of our model's performance, we employ the F1-score metric, and also proposed a new metric called the Joint F1 score to demonstrate the accurate and reliable performance of the model in terms of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In addition to the BDD-OIA dataset, the nu-AR dataset is utilized to further validate the generalization capability and robustness of the proposed network. The results demonstrate the superiority of our reasoning network over the classic and state-of-the-art models.