Explainability Evaluation

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.

AI-powered language learning tools increasingly provide instant, personalised feedback to millions of learners worldwide. However, this feedback can fail in ways that are difficult for learners--and even teachers--to detect, potentially reinforcing misconceptions and eroding learning outcomes over extended use. We present a portion of L2-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating AI systems in language education that includes (but is not limited to) six critical dimensions of effective feedback: diagnostic accuracy, awareness of appropriacy, causes of error, prioritisation, guidance for improvement, and supporting self-regulation. We analyse how AI systems can fail with respect to these dimensions. These failures, which we argue are conducive to "explainability pitfalls," are AI-generated explanations that appear helpful on the surface but are fundamentally flawed, increasing the risk of attainment, human-AI interaction, and socioaffective harms. We discuss how the specific context of language learning amplifies these risks and outline open questions we believe merit more attention when designing evaluation frameworks specifically. Our analysis aims to expand the community's understanding of both the typology of explainability pitfalls and the contextual dynamics in which they may occur in order to encourage AI developers to better design safe, trustworthy, and effective AI explanations.

The increasing number of satellites has improved the temporal resolution of Earth observation, making satellite-based flood mapping a promising approach for operational flood monitoring. Deep learning-based approaches for flood mapping using satellite imagery, an important application within Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI), have shown improved predictive performance by learning complex spatial and spectral patterns from large volumes of remote sensing data. However, the opaque decision-making processes of deep learning models remain a major barrier to their integration into critical scientific and operational workflows. This highlights the need for a systematic assessment of whether model explanations align with established domain knowledge in remote sensing. To address this research gap, this study introduces the ADAGE (Alignment between Domain Knowledge And GeoAI Explanation Evaluation) framework. The proposed framework is designed to systematically evaluate how well explanations of deep learning models align with established remote sensing knowledge, particularly regarding the distinctive spectral properties of the Earth's surface. The ADAGE framework employs Channel-Group SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) method to estimate the contributions of grouped input channels to pixel-level predictions. Experiments on two satellite-based flood mapping tasks demonstrate that the ADAGE framework can (1) quantitatively assess the alignment between model explanations and reference explanations derived from domain knowledge and (2) help domain experts identify misaligned explanations through alignment scores. This study contributes to bridging the gap between explainability and domain knowledge in GeoAI for Earth observation, enhancing the applicability of GeoAI models in scientific and operational workflows.

Graph neural networks such as ParticleNet and transformer based networks on point clouds such as ParticleTransformer achieve state-of-the-art performance on jet tagging benchmarks at the Large Hadron Collider, yet the physical reasoning behind their predictions remains opaque. We present different methods, i.e. perturbation-based (GNNExplainer), Shapley-value-based (GNNShap), and gradient-based (GRADCam); adapted to operate on LundNet's Lund-plane graph representation. Leveraging the fact that each node in the Lund plane corresponds to a physically meaningful parton splitting, we construct Monte Carlo truth explanation masks and introduce a physics-informed evaluation framework that goes beyond standard fidelity metrics. We perform the analysis in three transverse-momentum bins ($\mathrm{p_T} \in [500,700]$, $[800,1000]$, and the inclusive region $[500,1000]$ GeV), revealing how explanation quality and focus shift between non-perturbative and perturbative regimes. We further quantify the correlation between explainer-assigned node importance and classical jet substructure observables -- $N$-subjettiness ratios $τ_{21}$ and $τ_{32}$ and the energy correlation functions -- establishing the degree to which the model has learned known QCD features. We find that overall the weight assigned by explainability methods has a correlation with analytic observables, with expected shift across different phase space regimes, indicating that a trained neural network indeed learns some aspects of jet-substructure moments. Our open-source implementation enables reproducible explainability studies for graph-based jet taggers.

Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) extends traditional RAG by using knowledge graphs (KGs) to give large language models (LLMs) a structured, semantically coherent context, yielding more grounded answers. However, GraphRAG reasoning process remains a black-box, limiting our ability to understand how specific pieces of structured knowledge influence the final output. Existing explainability (XAI) methods for RAG systems, designed for text-based retrieval, are limited to interpreting an LLM response through the relational structures among knowledge components, creating a critical gap in transparency and trustworthiness. To address this, we introduce XGRAG, a novel framework that generates causally grounded explanations for GraphRAG systems by employing graph-based perturbation strategies, to quantify the contribution of individual graph components on the model answer. We conduct extensive experiments comparing XGRAG against RAG-Ex, an XAI baseline for standard RAG, and evaluate its robustness across various question types, narrative structures and LLMs. Our results demonstrate a 14.81% improvement in explanation quality over the baseline RAG-Ex across NarrativeQA, FairyTaleQA, and TriviaQA, evaluated by F1-score measuring alignment between generated explanations and original answers. Furthermore, XGRAG explanations exhibit a strong correlation with graph centrality measures, validating its ability to capture graph structure. XGRAG provides a scalable and generalizable approach towards trustworthy AI through transparent, graph-based explanations that enhance the interpretability of RAG systems.

We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Tankiit/PPO_Learning_to_rank

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

Most Neural Networks (NNs) for classification are trained using Cross-Entropy as a loss function. This approach requires the model to have an explicit classification layer. However, there exist alternative approaches, such as Contrastive Learning (CL). Instead of explicitly operating a classification, CL has the NN produce an embedding space where projections of similar data are pulled together, while projections of dissimilar data are pushed apart. In the case of Supervised CL (SCL), labels are adopted as similarity criteria, thus creating an embedding space where the projected data points are well-clustered. SCL provides crucial advantages over CE with regard to adversarial robustness and out-of-distribution detection, thus making it a more natural choice in safety-critical scenarios. In the present paper, we empirically show that NNs for image classification trained with SCL present higher-quality feature attribution explanations than CL with regard to faithfulness, complexity, and continuity. These results reinforce previous findings about CL-based approaches when targeting more trustworthy and transparent NNs and can guide practitioners in the selection of training objectives targeting not only accuracy, but also transparency of the models.

Explainability for Large Language Model (LLM) agents is especially challenging in interactive, partially observable settings, where decisions depend on evolving beliefs and other agents. We present \textbf{TriEx}, a tri-view explainability framework that instruments sequential decision making with aligned artifacts: (i) structured first-person self-reasoning bound to an action, (ii) explicit second-person belief states about opponents updated over time, and (iii) third-person oracle audits grounded in environment-derived reference signals. This design turns explanations from free-form narratives into evidence-anchored objects that can be compared and checked across time and perspectives. Using imperfect-information strategic games as a controlled testbed, we show that TriEx enables scalable analysis of explanation faithfulness, belief dynamics, and evaluator reliability, revealing systematic mismatches between what agents say, what they believe, and what they do. Our results highlight explainability as an interaction-dependent property and motivate multi-view, evidence-grounded evaluation for LLM agents. Code is available at https://github.com/Einsam1819/TriEx.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) provide an intuitive way to understand recommender systems by identifying minimal modifications to user-item interactions that alter recommendation outcomes. Existing CE methods for recommender systems, however, have been evaluated under heterogeneous protocols, using different datasets, recommenders, metrics, and even explanation formats, which hampers reproducibility and fair comparison. Our paper systematically reproduces, re-implement, and re-evaluate eleven state-of-the-art CE methods for recommender systems, covering both native explainers (e.g., LIME-RS, SHAP, PRINCE, ACCENT, LXR, GREASE) and specific graph-based explainers originally proposed for GNNs. Here, a unified benchmarking framework is proposed to assess explainers along three dimensions: explanation format (implicit vs. explicit), evaluation level (item-level vs. list-level), and perturbation scope (user interaction vectors vs. user-item interaction graphs). Our evaluation protocol includes effectiveness, sparsity, and computational complexity metrics, and extends existing item-level assessments to top-K list-level explanations. Through extensive experiments on three real-world datasets and six representative recommender models, we analyze how well previously reported strengths of CE methods generalize across diverse setups. We observe that the trade-off between effectiveness and sparsity depends strongly on the specific method and evaluation setting, particularly under the explicit format; in addition, explainer performance remains largely consistent across item level and list level evaluations, and several graph-based explainers exhibit notable scalability limitations on large recommender graphs. Our results refine and challenge earlier conclusions about the robustness and practicality of CE generation methods in recommender systems: https://github.com/L2R-UET/CFExpRec.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make the behaviour of machine learning models interpretable, yet many explanation methods remain difficult to understand. The integration of Natural Language Generation into XAI aims to deliver explanations in textual form, making them more accessible to practitioners. Current approaches, however, largely yield static lists of feature importances. Although such explanations indicate what influences the prediction, they do not explain why the prediction occurs. In this study, we draw on insights from social sciences and linguistics, and argue that XAI explanations should be presented in the form of narratives. Narrative explanations support human understanding through four defining properties: continuous structure, cause-effect mechanisms, linguistic fluency, and lexical diversity. We show that standard Natural Language Processing (NLP) metrics based solely on token probability or word frequency fail to capture these properties and can be matched or exceeded by tautological text that conveys no explanatory content. To address this issue, we propose seven automatic metrics that quantify the narrative quality of explanations along the four identified dimensions. We benchmark current state-of-the-art explanation generation methods on six datasets and show that the proposed metrics separate descriptive from narrative explanations more reliably than standard NLP metrics. Finally, to further advance the field, we propose a set of problem-agnostic XAI Narrative generation rules for producing natural language XAI explanations, so that the resulting XAI Narratives exhibit stronger narrative properties and align with the findings from the linguistic and social science literature.

Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) for 5G networks must handle complex, high-volume traffic. Although opaque "black-box" models can achieve high accuracy, their lack of transparency hinders trust and effective operational response. We propose ExAI5G, a framework that prioritizes interpretability by integrating a Transformer-based deep learning IDS with logic-based explainable AI (XAI) techniques. The framework uses Integrated Gradients to attribute feature importance and extracts a surrogate decision tree to derive logical rules. We introduce a novel evaluation methodology for LLM-generated explanations, using a powerful evaluator LLM to assess actionability and measuring their semantic similarity and faithfulness. On a 5G IoT intrusion dataset, our system achieves 99.9% accuracy and a 0.854 macro F1-score, demonstrating strong performance. More importantly, we extract 16 logical rules with 99.7% fidelity, making the model's reasoning transparent. The evaluation demonstrates that modern LLMs can generate explanations that are both faithful and actionable, indicating that it is possible to build a trustworthy and effective IDS without compromising performance for the sake of marginal gains from an opaque model.

Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced. We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring that combines model-agnostic Shapley-value attributions with rationales generated by large language models (LLMs). Instantiated on the Quality of Feedback dimension of the CLASS framework using the NCTE corpus, the framework enables systematic comparison of fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) and prompted LLMs on both scoring performance and explanation faithfulness. Across 6k annotated transcript segments, fine-tuned PLMs outperform LLMs in prediction accuracy but exhibit label compression toward mid-scale scores. Deletion-based tests show that SHAP identifies sentences that reliably drive model predictions, producing typically larger and more coherent prediction shifts than LLM-generated rationales. Cross-model analyses further reveal that SHAP attributions transfer robustly across architectures, whereas LLM rationales exert limited and inconsistent influence. Overall, the findings demonstrate that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring, and that the proposed framework offers a principled basis for evaluating both scoring models and their explanations in high-stakes educational settings and other rubric-based language assessment tasks.

Existing feature-interpretation pipelines typically operate on uniformly sampled units or exhaustive feature sets, incurring massive costs on units irrelevant to target behaviors. To address this, we introduce the first CLT-native end-to-end pruning framework, PIE, which pioneers the paradigm of pruning first and interpreting later. PIE connects Pruning, automatic Interpretation, and interpretation Evaluation, establishing a comprehensive benchmarking environment to systematically measure behavioral fidelity and downstream interpretability under pruning. Within this framework, we adapt strong relevance baselines and propose Feature Attribution Patching (FAP), a patch-grounded attribution method that scores CLT features by aggregating gradient-weighted write contributions. Furthermore, we introduce FAP-Synergy, a systematic synergy-aware reranking procedure. We evaluate pruning using KL-divergence behavior retention and assess interpretation quality with FADE-style metrics across IOI and Doc-String datasets. Across budget constraints of K in {50, 100, 200, 400, 800}, our rigorous benchmarking reveals distinct operational regimes: while base FAP and adapted baselines perform robustly at relaxed budgets, FAP-Synergy excels in highly constrained, strict-budget regimes. Crucially, we demonstrate a practical "Effective Budget" advantage: on the IOI task for both Llama-3.2-1B and Gemma-2-2B, FAP-Synergy at K=50 functionally matches the behavioral fidelity of baseline circuits at K=75. Because downstream evaluation costs scale linearly per feature, Synergy effectively grants the pipeline 25 "free" features, achieving K=75 fidelity while reducing interpretation costs by 33%.

Masking-based post-hoc explanation methods, such as KernelSHAP and LIME, estimate local feature importance by querying a black-box model under randomized perturbations. This paper formulates this procedure as communication over a query channel, where the latent explanation acts as a message and each masked evaluation is a channel use. Within this framework, the complexity of the explanation is captured by the entropy of the hypothesis class, while the query interface supplies information at a rate determined by an identification capacity per query. We derive a strong converse showing that, if the explanation rate exceeds this capacity, the probability of exact recovery necessarily converges to one in error for any sequence of explainers and decoders. We also prove an achievability result establishing that a sparse maximum-likelihood decoder attains reliable recovery when the rate lies below capacity. A Monte Carlo estimator of mutual information yields a non-asymptotic query benchmark that we use to compare optimal decoding with Lasso- and OLS-based procedures that mirror LIME and KernelSHAP. Experiments reveal a range of query budgets where information theory permits reliable explanations but standard convex surrogates still fail. Finally, we interpret super-pixel resolution and tokenization for neural language models as a source-coding choice that sets the entropy of the explanation and show how Gaussian noise and nonlinear curvature degrade the query channel, induce waterfall and error-floor behavior, and render high-resolution explanations unattainable.

Explaining Machine Learning (ML) results in a transparent and user-friendly manner remains a challenging task of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we present a method to enhance the interpretability of ML models by using a Knowledge Graph (KG). We store domain-specific data along with ML results and their corresponding explanations, establishing a structured connection between domain knowledge and ML insights. To make these insights accessible to users, we designed a selective retrieval method in which relevant triplets are extracted from the KG and processed by a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate user-friendly explanations of ML results. We evaluated our method in a manufacturing environment using the XAI Question Bank. Beyond standard questions, we introduce more complex, tailored questions that highlight the strengths of our approach. We evaluated 33 questions, analyzing responses using quantitative metrics such as accuracy and consistency, as well as qualitative ones such as clarity and usefulness. Our contribution is both theoretical and practical: from a theoretical perspective, we present a novel approach for effectively enabling LLMs to dynamically access a KG in order to improve the explainability of ML results. From a practical perspective, we provide empirical evidence showing that such explanations can be successfully applied in real-world manufacturing environments, supporting better decision-making in manufacturing processes.

For head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, prognostic outcome prediction can support personalized treatment strategy selection. Improving prediction performance of HNC outcomes has been extensively explored by using advanced artificial intelligence (AI) techniques on PET/CT data. However, the interpretability of AI remains a critical obstacle for its clinical adoption. Unlike previous HNC studies that empirically selected explainable AI (XAI) techniques, we are the first to comprehensively evaluate and rank 13 XAI methods across 24 metrics, covering faithfulness, robustness, complexity and plausibility. Experimental results on the multi-center HECKTOR challenge dataset show large variations across evaluation aspects among different XAI methods, with Integrated Gradients (IG) and DeepLIFT (DL) consistently obtained high rankings for faithfulness, complexity and plausibility. This work highlights the importance of comprehensive XAI method evaluation and can be extended to other medical imaging tasks.

Robust explanations are increasingly required for user trust in enterprise NLP, yet pre-deployment validation is difficult in the common case of black-box deployment (API-only access) where representation-based explainers are infeasible and existing studies provide limited guidance on whether explanations remain stable under real user noise, especially when organizations migrate from encoder classifiers to decoder LLMs. To close this gap, we propose a unified black-box robustness evaluation framework for token-level explanations based on leave-one-out occlusion, and operationalize explanation robustness with top-token flip rate under realistic perturbations (swap, deletion, shuffling, and back-translation) at multiple severity levels. Using this protocol, we conduct a systematic cross-architecture comparison across three benchmark datasets and six models spanning encoder and decoder families (BERT, RoBERTa, Qwen 7B/14B, Llama 8B/70B; 64,800 cases). We find that decoder LLMs produce substantially more stable explanations than encoder baselines (73% lower flip rates on average), and that stability improves with model scale (44% gain from 7B to 70B). Finally, we relate robustness improvements to inference cost, yielding a practical cost-robustness tradeoff curve that supports model and explanation selection prior to deployment in compliance-sensitive applications.

LLM self-explanations are often presented as a promising tool for AI oversight, yet their faithfulness to the model's true reasoning process is poorly understood. Existing faithfulness metrics have critical limitations, typically relying on identifying unfaithfulness via adversarial prompting or detecting reasoning errors. These methods overlook the predictive value of explanations. We introduce Normalized Simulatability Gain (NSG), a general and scalable metric based on the idea that a faithful explanation should allow an observer to learn a model's decision-making criteria, and thus better predict its behavior on related inputs. We evaluate 18 frontier proprietary and open-weight models, e.g., Gemini 3, GPT-5.2, and Claude 4.5, on 7,000 counterfactuals from popular datasets covering health, business, and ethics. We find self-explanations substantially improve prediction of model behavior (11-37% NSG). Self-explanations also provide more predictive information than explanations generated by external models, even when those models are stronger. This implies an advantage from self-knowledge that external explanation methods cannot replicate. Our approach also reveals that, across models, 5-15% of self-explanations are highly misleading. Despite their imperfections, we show a positive case for self-explanations: they encode information that helps predict model behavior.

SHAP explanations are widely used in high-stakes settings to justify decisions, yet they can differ substantially across repeated runs, even when the model, the input instance, and the prediction are held fixed. Prior work has documented disagreement between explanation methods; we show that substantial disagreement arises even within SHAP across reruns of the same estimator on the same trained model and instance. We call this phenomenon explanation multiplicity and develop an evaluation methodology for characterizing it under deployment-realistic computational budgets, combining a dual-seed protocol that compares model-induced and explainer-induced variability, a hierarchy of magnitude-based, rank-based, and set-based metrics, and randomized Dirichlet and Mallows null models that provide reference scales for observed disagreement. Across multiple datasets, models, and sampling strategies, we find that explanation multiplicity is pervasive and persists even for high-confidence predictions. The relative contribution of each source depends on the data regime and model: model-induced disagreement is generally greater on smaller datasets, while explainer-induced disagreement is greater on larger datasets. Commonly used L2 distance can understate this instability, while rank-based metrics reveal substantial changes in top-ranked features, including the leading feature. Improved sampling methods such as CTE do not eliminate rank-level multiplicity, and K-Means reduces run-to-run variation while its compressed-background explanations can diverge from the empirical-distribution reference. Practitioners should treat single-run SHAP outputs as realizations of a distribution rather than as authoritative artifacts.

Complex AI systems make better predictions but often lack transparency, limiting trustworthiness, interpretability, and safe deployment. Common post hoc AI explainers, such as LIME, SHAP, HSIC, and SAGE, are model agnostic but are too restricted in one significant regard: they tend to misrank correlated features and require costly perturbations, which do not scale to high dimensional data. We introduce ExCIR (Explainability through Correlation Impact Ratio), a theoretically grounded, simple, and reliable metric for explaining the contribution of input features to model outputs, which remains stable and consistent under noise and sampling variations. We demonstrate that ExCIR captures dependencies arising from correlated features through a lightweight single pass formulation. Experimental evaluations on diverse datasets, including EEG, synthetic vehicular data, Digits, and Cats-Dogs, validate the effectiveness and stability of ExCIR across domains, achieving more interpretable feature explanations than existing methods while remaining computationally efficient. To this end, we further extend ExCIR with an information theoretic foundation that unifies the correlation ratio with Canonical Correlation Analysis under mutual information bounds, enabling multi output and class conditioned explainability at scale.

Machine learning models are primarily judged by predictive performance, especially in applied genomics, where explanations are read as biological findings. In practice, reported gene panels are stabilised by averaging, ranking, or taking consensus over the many models a pipeline produces across cross-validation folds, tuning grids, and repeated runs. This raises an overlooked question: when two models achieve high accuracy, do they rely on the same internal logic, or reach the same outcome via different mechanisms? We introduce EvoXplain, a diagnostic framework that measures whether a pipeline's explanation is uniquely determined across repeated training and model selection. Rather than analysing a single trained model, EvoXplain treats explanations as samples drawn from the training and model selection pipeline itself, without aggregating predictions or constructing ensembles, and examines whether they form a single coherent explanatory basin or separate into multiple structured basins. We evaluate EvoXplain on a TCGA pan-cancer cohort and a within-cancer breast-cancer subtype task, using elastic-net Logistic Regression and gradient-boosted trees. Although all models reach about 98% accuracy, explanation structure differs across pipelines. Holding the data split fixed and varying only the regularisation strength, equally accurate Logistic Regression models separate into a few discrete, reproducible basins that recur across 100 data splits and carry distinct biological content, while the gradient-boosted pipeline converges to one basin. The same multiplicity appears within a single cancer subtype, from the ordinary tuning step alone. EvoXplain makes explanatory structure visible, revealing when an averaged consensus corresponds to no single trained model, and reframes interpretability as a property of the training pipeline rather than of any single model.

Understanding the economic intent of Ethereum transactions is critical for user safety, yet current tools expose only raw on-chain data or surface-level intent, leading to widespread ``blind signing'' (approving transactions without understanding them). Through interviews with 16 Web3 users, we find that effective explanations should be structured, risk-aware, and grounded at the token-flow level. Motivated by these findings, we formulate TxSum, a new domain-grounded NLP task for DeFi transaction explanation, and construct a dataset of 187 complex Ethereum transactions with 2,375 token-flow annotations and transaction-level summaries. We further introduce MATEX, a grounded multi-agent framework for high-stakes transaction explanation. It selectively retrieves external knowledge under uncertainty and audits explanations against raw traces to improve token-flow-level factual consistency. MATEX achieves the strongest overall explanation quality, especially on micro-level factuality and intent quality. It improves user comprehension on complex transactions from 52.9% to 76.5% over the strongest baseline and raises malicious-transaction rejection from 36.0% to 88.0%, while maintaining a low false-rejection rate on benign transactions.

Assessing the importance of individual features in Machine Learning is critical to understand the model's decision-making process. While numerous methods exist, the lack of a definitive ground truth for comparison highlights the need for alternative, well-founded measures. This paper introduces a novel post-hoc local feature importance method called Counterfactual Importance Distribution (CID). We generate two sets of positive and negative counterfactuals, model their distributions using Kernel Density Estimation, and rank features based on a distributional dissimilarity measure. This measure, grounded in a rigorous mathematical framework, satisfies key properties required to function as a valid metric. We showcase the effectiveness of our method by comparing with well-established local feature importance explainers. Our method not only offers complementary perspectives to existing approaches, but also improves performance on faithfulness metrics (both for comprehensiveness and sufficiency), resulting in more faithful explanations of the system. These results highlight its potential as a valuable tool for model analysis. Link to repository: https://github.com/EddieConti/CID

Explanations are often promoted as tools for transparency, but they can also foster confirmation bias; users may assume reasoning is correct whenever outputs appear acceptable. We study this double-edged role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in multimodal moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones. Specifically, we analyze reasoning errors in vision language models (VLMs) and how they impact user trust and the ability to detect errors. Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often equate trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed, and (2) the confident tone suppresses error detection while maintaining reliance, showing that delivery styles can override correctness. These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust. All code will be released publicly.

Perturbation-based explainability methods face criticism due to their reliance on out-of-distribution mutants. This raises doubts about the quality of the explanations. In this paper, we introduce a novel forward pass paradigm, Activation-Deactivation (AD), which obviates the need for perturbation of the input. AD replaces perturbation of input features with switching off parts of the model corresponding to to the intended perturbations. We implement ConvAD, an AD approximation algorithm for CNNs. ConvAD is a drop-in mechanism that can be easily added to any trained CNN and, without any additional training, generates more robust and more transferable explanations. We provide evaluation results across multiple architectures, datasets, methods and perturbation strategies, demonstrating the superior quality of ConvAD compared to the SOTA.

Swarm-based optimization algorithms have demonstrated remarkable success in solving complex problems, yet their widespread adoption remains limited due to poor transparency in how algorithmic components influence performance. This work presents a multi-faceted explainability framework for Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) through two complementary perspectives: landscape-based and algorithmic explainability. From the landscape-based perspective, we develop a comprehensive characterization framework using Exploratory Landscape Analysis (ELA) to quantify problem difficulty, multimodality, and ruggedness, extracting ELA meta-features, dispersion measures, and information content statistics, while a machine learning approach employing Decision Tree and Random Forest classifiers enables prediction of optimal topology-specific hyperparameter configurations for unseen problems. From the algorithmic explainability perspective, we integrate IOHxplainer for temporal convergence profiling and Search Trajectory Networks (STN) for spatial navigation mapping, proposing three novel STN metrics-Connectivity Density, Fragmentation Score, and Search Efficiency-that enhance visual explainability by quantifying topology-specific search organization and transition effectiveness. Through systematic experimentation across 24 benchmark functions in multiple dimensions with Star, Ring, and Von Neumann topologies, we establish practical guidelines for topology selection and parameter configuration. Our findings uncover the black-box nature of PSO, providing greater transparency and interpretability to swarm intelligence systems. The source code is available at https://github.com/GitNitin02/ioh_pso.

Active learning is a general learning mechanism shared by artificial and human learners. Whether AI can teach humans such a strategy that transfers across domains is an open question. Ultra Strong Machine Learning (USML), a system whose explanations quantifiably improve human out-of-sample performance compared to self-learning, is uniquely positioned to answer this question. Prior USML work relied on hand-crafted explanation templates that require expert effort for each new domain and do not scale. We developed an explanation pipeline combining Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) with large language models (LLMs) to automate explanation generation and scoring. We tested whether these explanations achieve USML in a human trial teaching active learning strategies across three related domains. Our exploratory results show that concise, expert-written explanations benefit learners with higher initial performance, while pipeline-generated explanations provide no advantage over self-learning despite being rated as higher quality from an LLM-as-judge evaluation. This case study reveals a systematic gap that LLM quality metrics do not predict human learning outcomes. Our findings point to explanation complexity relative to task difficulty as a key factor, and call for explanation methods and evaluation criteria grounded in human cognitive constraints rather than LLM preference.

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are an effective approach for classification tasks, particularly when the training dataset is large. Although CNNs have long been considered a black-box classification method, they can be used as a white-box method through visualization techniques such as Grad-CAM. When the training samples are limited, incorporating a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) layer and/or a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier into a CNN can effectively improve the classification performance. However, a conventional Grad-CAM cannot be directly applied to PCA and/or SVM layers. Generating attention regions for PCA and/or SVM layers in CNNs is important to facilitate the development of white-box methods. Therefore, we propose PCA-Grad-CAM'', a method for visualizing attention regions in PCA feature vectors, and SVM-Grad-CAM'', a method for visualizing attention regions in an SVM classifier layer. Solving a closed-form Jacobian problem comprising partial derivatives from the last convolutional layer to the PCA and/or SVM layers is necessary to complete the proposed methods analytically. In this paper, we present the exact closed-form Jacobian and visualization results of the proposed methods applied to several major datasets. In addition, the insertion and deletion metrics, which are major evaluation metrics in explainable AI, were applied to PCA- and SVM-Grad-CAM. The results suggest that the proposed method can successfully visualize the attention regions of PCA and SVM.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) can be enhanced through rule mining; however, the resulting logical rules are often difficult for humans to interpret due to their inherent complexity and the idiosyncratic labeling conventions of individual KGs. This work presents Rule2Text, a comprehensive framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate natural language explanations for mined logical rules, thereby improving KG accessibility and usability. We conduct extensive experiments using multiple datasets, including Freebase variants (FB-CVT-REV, FB+CVT-REV, and FB15k-237) as well as the ogbl-biokg dataset, with rules mined using AMIE 3.5.1. We systematically evaluate several LLMs across a comprehensive range of prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, variable type incorporation, and Chain-of-Thought reasoning. To systematically assess models' performance, we conduct a human evaluation of generated explanations on correctness and clarity. To address evaluation scalability, we develop and validate an LLM-as-a-judge framework that demonstrates strong agreement with human evaluators. Leveraging the best-performing model (Gemini 2.0 Flash), LLM judge, and human-in-the-loop feedback, we construct high-quality ground truth datasets, which we use to fine-tune the open-source Zephyr model. Our results demonstrate significant improvements in explanation quality after fine-tuning, with particularly strong gains in the domain-specific dataset. Additionally, we integrate a type inference module to support KGs lacking explicit type information. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/idirlab/KGRule2NL.