Explainability

Explanations of machine learning models are usually judged by criteria that are hard to compare. We propose a simpler test: if an explanation really describes how a model uses its features, it should be possible to rebuild the model's predictions from it. We turn each explanation into a predictor by reading each feature's effect and adding them up, and measure how well that predictor reproduces the model on unseen data. Nothing is fitted, so the score reflects the explanation itself. The test applies to any explanation that can be written as a function of the features; we demonstrate it on partial dependence plots (PDP), accumulated local effects (ALE), SHAP and LIME. We prove that summing partial dependence curves gives the best possible additive summary of a model when its features are independent, and that this fails when they are dependent. Across 13 real datasets and 9 synthetic designs and four model families, which method scores best depends entirely on feature dependence: where features are independent SHAP is slightly worse than PDP, exactly as the theory predicts; on dependent real data SHAP leads. Some widely used quality metrics even prefer a damaged explanation to an intact one.

Formal explainability provides mathematically grounded justifications for individual predictions. However, abductive explanations often exceed human cognitive limits by involving too many features, while probabilistic relaxations have remained largely limited to categorical classification. We present a unified framework for probabilistic explainability based on sparse, anchored linear models, applicable to both binary classification and continuous regression. By mapping instances to the Boolean hypercube, our linear explanations strictly generalize subset-based approaches: they capture both the magnitude and direction of feature contributions while enforcing a prescribed sparsity budget $k$. We show that minimizing the relevance error for such explanations is \ClassNPPP-hard when the underlying model is a neural network, and we relate this intractable objective to a tractable surrogate---the fidelity error. For a parameterized family of local distributions, the relevance error of any $k$-sparse explanation is bounded by its fidelity error up to a multiplicative factor that remains small locally. We address the resulting empirical problem using two complementary approaches: a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) formulation that yields provably optimal empirical solutions while maintaining polynomial sample complexity, and a polynomial-time Iterative Hard Thresholding (IHT) algorithm with provable approximation guarantees. Empirical evaluations show that, unlike state-of-the-art baselines such as LIME and MAPLE, our explanations satisfy both the anchoring and sparsity constraints by construction, while consistently achieving lower relevance error.

Model explainability is essential for understanding and trusting machine learning models. Existing explainable AI methods often explain predictions through feature importance, counterfactual explanations, or rules. However, a region-level characterization of when and only when a prediction behavior arises remains less explored. This paper proposes Causal Sufficient and Necessary Regional Explanations (SNRE), a framework that learns an input region $A$ and output region $B$ such that membership in $A$ is both sufficient and necessary for the model output to fall in $B$. Motivated by the classical Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS), we formulate a region-level PNS measure through stochastic interventions and derive a differentiable finite-sample estimator for optimization. SNRE parameterizes the input-output region pair with explicit and interpretable algebraic region families, together with a learnable feature mask, balancing expressiveness and interpretability. Experiments demonstrate that SNRE learns region pairs with strong sufficiency-necessity performance, robust explanation behavior, and practical utility for model analysis.

Despite the rapid uptake of black-box object detectors in marine mammal research and monitoring, explainability techniques are rarely integrated into conservation workflows. Furthermore, most classification-oriented explainability tools are ill-suited to detection tasks involving imagery of social organisms or those with colonial life histories, as they ignore multiple detections within a scene and produce single-instance outputs that blur evidence across individuals. These methods also generate low-resolution, often biologically irrelevant visuals, limiting their utility for debugging, targeted data augmentation, and refined data collection. We proposed Det-LIME, a detector-aware, multi-instance adaptation of Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) that produced instance-specific, box-aligned explanations by combining per-detection weighting, a proximity kernel that emphasizes regions near each box, and Intersection-over-Union-based matching to track the same instance across perturbations. We evaluated Det-LIME on aerial drone imagery for harbor seal detection, with an additional seabird case study to assess generality, and compared it with vanilla LIME, Stabilized LIME, Deterministic LIME, and gradient-based attribution methods. Using the Attribution Ratio and Max Saliency Hit Rate metrics, we showed that Det-LIME consistently improved multi-instance attribution. In practice, these higher-resolution, instance-aware explanations provide insight into model outputs and support post-processing, debugging, and actionable improvements in modeling and data collection or augmentation.

Machine learning (ML) has become the dominant approach for network traffic classification, achieving very high predictive performance. However, a model is only valuable if it learns semantically meaningful and trustworthy patterns rather than exploiting spurious correlations. Conventional evaluation practices predominantly assess predictive performance. Consequently, whether the model relies on semantically meaningful patterns remains unknown. To address these challenges, we adapt the knowledge generation framework for network traffic classification. The adapted framework combines data, ML models, explainability, visualization, and expert reasoning to support the iterative exploration, verification, and refinement of model behavior and data preprocessing. The framework is grounded in findings from the literature, benchmark dataset analyses, practical experience with XAI-based traffic classification, and expert feedback, providing practical guidance for semantic model validation. By complementing predictive performance with semantic validation and human expertise, the proposed framework supports the development of network traffic classification models that are not only accurate but also robust and trustworthy.

Dementia is a major and growing global health burden, with Alzheimer's disease (AD) accounting for most cases. Timely and accurate diagnosis is central to managing this burden and increasingly depends on integrating complementary clinical and imaging information. Multimodal deep learning can combine these modalities for AD diagnosis, but how its explanations behave across modalities, fusion strategies, and cohorts remains unclear. We developed an explainable multimodal framework pairing a 3D CNN encoder for T1-weighted MRI with a feedforward network for harmonized clinical and demographic data, comparing varied model setups on three-way and pairwise diagnostic tasks using 6,479 internal records from the ADNI and 1,703 independent records from the OASIS-3. On ADNI, the tabular-only model achieved the highest three-class AUC-ROC of 0.879 and best discriminated cognitively normal (CN) versus mild cognitive impairment (MCI; 0.903), while cross-attention performed best for MCI versus AD (0.861); CN versus AD was highly discriminative overall. On OASIS-3, the vision-only model performed best (three-class AUC-ROC 0.910); CN versus MCI remained difficult, and no fusion strategy consistently outperformed single modalities across tasks and cohorts. SHAP and Integrated Gradients identified the MMSE as the dominant tabular feature in both cohorts, with global feature rankings agreeing strongly in ADNI ($\rho=0.94$) and OASIS-3 ($\rho=0.96$); CAM-based explanations, however, changed with model configuration and cohort. These findings show that multimodal performance and explanations are task, modality, fusion, and cohort-dependent: a dominant cognitive signal persisted across cohorts, but feature contributions and CAM explanations did not, underscoring the need to evaluate explainability under cohort shift rather than as a stable, intrinsic property.

Deep learning models for dynamic survival analysis (DSA) achieve strong predictive performance by incorporating longitudinal patient data, but their black box nature limits clinical trust and adoption. Existing explainability methods cannot handle longitudinal, irregular inputs and functional survival outputs simultaneously, which limits their usability in DSA. We propose DynSHAP, a SHAP framework suited specifically for dynamic survival analysis. It extends common marginal SHAP estimators to this setting by treating time--feature pairs as players in the Shapley game. We further introduce Temporal DynSHAP, which learns linear dependencies in features over time and uses conditional sampling to address them in explanations. When applied to synthetic data with known ground-truth attributions, Temporal DynSHAP recovers temporally dependent features more accurately than marginal estimators for a given state-of-the-art model. Applied to two real-world clinical datasets and two DSA architectures, DynSHAP produces attributions faithful to model learning, allowing medical experts to see which patient information drove the prediction and when.

Genetic Programming and its variants, such as grammatical evolution, are widely used in Symbolic Regression to derive mathematical expressions from multivariate data. In addition to predictive accuracy, models are appreciated for their potential to provide interpretability, offering explicit equations that relate input variables to outcomes. However, achieving interpretability and plausibility remains challenging, as evolved models may be complex or scientifically inconsistent. In this study, we explore whether Large Language Models, can assist in improving the explainability of Symbolic Regression models generated by evolutionary computation methods. Building upon our previous work on estimating body fat percentage using grammar-based Genetic Programming , we investigate the use of LLMs as post-processing tools to analyze and rank evolved expressions according to their interpretability and medical plausibility. Four symbolic expressions are analysed by three LLMs over three repeated runs, and the resulting interpretations and rankings are assessed by a panel of three clinicians. Across the three LLMs, comparative model-ranking outputs received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations. However, the LLMs also produced physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations, indicating that they are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.\blfootnote{The present work is an extended version of a paper submitted into a journal.

Feature-based explanations quantify features' influence on model predictions, but are primarily designed for scalar outputs. In many applications, however, outputs are functional or multivariate, such as time-dependent trajectories in demand forecasting. Consequently, existing approaches typically explain each output location independently, ignoring dependencies across the output components. We address this limitation by developing a unified framework for feature-based explanations of time-dependent outputs. Specifically, we generalize functional decomposition to Hilbert-valued prediction functions and extend an existing feature-based explanation framework to this setting. Our framework introduces kernel-based output representations that enable time-dependency-aware explanations at multiple levels of temporal granularity, including time-specific, time-resolved, and time-aggregated, while providing a unified view in which existing methods arise as special cases. We validate our framework on synthetic and real-world data, including intraday financial market volatility prediction and energy demand forecasting.

Deep learning has achieved state-of-the-art performance in echocardiographic video segmentation, with an increasing number of models incorporating temporal information. However, quantitative evaluation of temporal explainability remains largely unexplored. We propose a quantitative framework for evaluating Grad-CAM explanations using four complementary metrics measuring temporal consistency, saliency motion, anatomical overlap, and temporal overlap. Using EchoNet-Dynamic, we compare a baseline 2D U-Net with ConvLSTM U-Net models trained across multiple temporal strides. While segmentation performance remained comparable across all models, intermediate ConvLSTM explanations exhibited substantially lower saliency consistency and greater centroid motion than final prediction explanations. Temporal Bottleneck explanations were significantly more stable than Encoder Bottleneck explanations across all strides, while final ConvLSTM Decoder3 explanations were broadly comparable to those of the 2D U-Net. Importantly, conventional frame-wise explanation metrics cannot determine whether variation in intermediate explanations reflects meaningful temporal feature evolution or explanation instability. These findings establish a preliminary quantitative framework for temporal explainability and motivate temporal-aware XAI methods that explicitly account for evolving representations in medical video models.

Explaining why a specific outcome occurred, and which inputs deserve the blame or credit, is central to philosophical, scientific, and policy analysis. Existing tools split into two camps. The theory of actual causality (AC) gives principled verdicts, but only for toy-sized models, because computing them requires enumerating counterfactual scenarios. Scalable attribution methods like SHAP (or even causal SHAP) at least partially ignore the causal structure that generated the data, and can give answers that conflict with a careful causal analysis. We close this gap with Probabilistic Causal Impact (PCI). PCI builds on actual causality and on Pearl's notions of probability of necessity and sufficiency, but recasts the question of explainability as an estimation problem on a probabilistic causal model that is easily approximated via Monte Carlo. By specifying a distribution over "candidate explanations," a distribution over counterfactual values, and a scoring function, PCI provides tractable, causally grounded, graded explanations, generalizing AC and Pearl's probability of causation as degenerate cases. We evaluate PCI in synthetic and real-world examples, spanning consistency checks with AC, scaling experiments, complex continuous-valued dynamical systems, and a real-world deployed causal machine learning model trained on millions of datapoints.

Federated Learning (FL) with Differential Privacy (DP) is increasingly adopted to preserve data confidentiality in distributed machine learning. However, DP noise distorts learned representations and degrades explanation fidelity, limiting differentially private FL where trustworthy explanations are required, such as assistive clinical diagnosis. Prior work adapted DP noise with static feature-importance signals, restricting explainability to post hoc analysis and precluding noise calibration to explanation quality during training. We propose XCal-FL, a closed-loop, explainability-driven local training algorithm for image classification in cross-silo FL that dynamically calibrates DP noise from three complementary signals: (1) prediction logit variations, measuring causal influence on model confidence, (2) counterfactual margins, capturing decision-boundary sensitivity, and (3) saliency concentration, quantifying spatial coherence of model attention, while enforcing formal DP guarantees via adaptive privacy accounting. Experiments on three medical imaging datasets across varying FL configurations show that XCal-FL yields more accurate and interpretable global models, improving predictive performance by over 10% and explanation fidelity by up to 5$\times$ over static-noise FL, and outperforming state-of-the-art adaptive DP methods in fidelity. XCal-FL also achieves higher privacy-budget efficiency, turning each unit of cumulative privacy loss into larger gains in both accuracy and explanation fidelity. Our analysis further reveals that, unlike predictive performance, which scales roughly linearly with privacy loss, explanation fidelity exhibits non-linear dynamics. These findings suggest explainability is a distinct dimension of the privacy trade-off that cannot be inferred from utility alone, with implications for training and privacy-budget allocation in decision-critical applications.

Feature importance Methods (FIMs) are widely used in Explainable AI to interpret model predictions, yet attribution scores alone often provide limited insight into the underlying reasoning process. In this work, we introduce a novel perspective by embedding FIMs within a hypothesis-testing framework based on Weight of Evidence (WoE). We quantify how strongly the observed evidence supports any given hypothesis on feature importance. The reference hypothesis can stem from domain knowledge, ground truth, or be derived from the FIM itself. This formulation enables a principled evaluation of FIMs, capturing both their alignment with prior knowledge and their variability. We further provide theoretical results linking WoE to attribution variance. Empirical results shows the applicability and flexibility of our strategy analyzing LIME and SHAP explanations in settings with different reference hypotheses. Overall, our framework offers a complementary tool for assessing FIMs through a contrastive, evidence-based lens.

Deep neural networks often exploit spurious associations, a failure known as shortcut learning. Before deployment, models should be audited for reliance on a set of concepts, such as acquisition artifacts or demographics. Current methods, such as linear probes and concept activation vectors, measure reliance by asking whether each concept, in isolation, is decodable from a layer. Their scores therefore reflect not only reliance but also correlations in the audit dataset. We introduce Independent Canonical cONcept (ICON) decomposition, which quantifies the share of a layer's variance each concept explains, conditional on all other concepts and the outcome. ICON scores are variance shares, comparable across layers and between continuous and categorical concepts. ICON also reports the share the set leaves unexplained. On simulated data, ICON recovers the true importance more accurately than seven baselines. On skin-cancer and neuroimaging models, ICON distinguishes learned shortcuts from correlated concepts, confirmed by retraining and out-of-distribution tests.

Class activation mapping (CAM) is one of the most widely used visual explanation families in explainable artificial intelligence. Its purpose is intuitive: it converts internal model evidence into a heatmap that highlights the image regions, convolutional channels, tokens, or patches that support a target class or concept. Since the first CAM formulation in 2016, the field has moved far beyond global-average-pooled CNN classifiers. CAM-style methods now include gradient-based post-hoc explanations, gradient-free score and ablation methods, high-resolution upscaling, weakly supervised localization and segmentation, transformer token attribution, causal and debiasing methods, and foundation-model-era approaches that use CLIP, DINO, SAM, or feature-distribution comparisons. This review synthesizes a strict corpus of 57 method-centered papers published from 2016 onward. The paper develops a taxonomy that separates methods by attribution mechanism, architectural dependence, and evaluation objective. It then reviews gradient-based CAMs, recent and hybrid CAM-style methods, and model-based or architecture-aware methods. Across the corpus, the main trend is clear: the field is shifting from explaining one class score in one low-resolution CNN layer toward comparative, multi-layer, probabilistic, token-aware, and foundation-model-aware explanations. At the same time, evaluation remains fragmented. Faithfulness, localization, robustness, computational cost, and human trust are often measured with different protocols. The review therefore emphasizes not only what each method contributes, but also which gap it leaves open and which later methods attempt to close that gap.

In the operation of machine learning models, model update is a fundamental process that requires careful consideration of its impact on downstream decision-making. Particularly when operating explainable models, changes in explanations resulting from model updates can lead to detrimental outcomes for users. Decision trees, due to their high transparency, are frequently employed in risk-sensitive decision-making and serve as a prominent example in which the aforementioned issue is evident. However, existing research addressing similar issues has focused on explanations based on feature contributions, and thus cannot handle explanations derived from tree structures. Therefore, this paper proposes the Backward Compatibility Loss in Tree-based eXplanations (BCLTX), a loss metric that suppresses changes in decision tree explanations before and after updates. Furthermore, we design CART with Backward Compatibility in Tree-based eXplanations (CART-BCTX), a lightweight algorithm that improves upon CART for the decision tree update problem under BCLTX. Experimental results using 10 real-world datasets, including both classification and regression tasks, show that CART-BCTX achieves favorable trade-offs between prediction performances and BCLTX values, with comparable computation times to CART, regardless of the task.

Test-time adaptation (TTA) has become a practical way to adapt deployed models to unlabeled target data, a setting that is especially relevant in computational pathology where staining, scanner, and cohort shifts are routine. While most TTA methods are evaluated by their effect on accuracy, clinical use also depends on whether the model's explanations remain reliable after adaptation. In this paper, we take a closer look at this largely unmeasured effect. We study explanation stability under TTA across two histopathology benchmarks, Camelyon17 and NCT CRC-HE, using five architectures ranging from convolutional networks to vision transformers and a pathology foundation model, seventeen TTA methods, and four attribution families. Across 2,958 adaptation runs, we observe a clear and systematic pattern: TTA methods differ sharply in how much they move model explanations, with frozen-backbone methods leaving attributions almost unchanged and continual methods such as CoTTA and RoTTA causing the largest drift. This effect is not uniform. Convolutional networks are substantially more sensitive than transformer and foundation-model backbones, and explanation drift increases with adaptation strength while remaining largely insensitive to batch size. Surprisingly, explanation stability is only weakly coupled to adaptation quality. Some methods preserve explanations almost perfectly while degrading calibration or accuracy, producing silent failures that would be missed by accuracy-only or explanation-only evaluation. These findings show that explanation stability is a distinct reliability axis for TTA in computational pathology. We release the metric, protocol, and full benchmark to support future work on adaptation methods that are not only accurate, but also stable and clinically auditable. Code: https://github.com/bahumanyarg11/tta-explanation-stability-pipeline

Interpreting clustering outcomes remains a fundamental challenge in data analysis, particularly in domains such as healthcare where meaningful patterns must be extracted from high-dimensional data. While numerous explainability techniques exist, they are primarily designed to assess feature importance or provide local instance-level explanations rather than to identify structured patterns present within clusters. This work presents a comparative evaluation of commonly used post-hoc analysis methods for pattern detection in clustering results. To enable controlled evaluation, we introduce a suite of synthetic datasets in which predefined patterns are systematically injected. Three widely used techniques are evaluated: a Random Forest surrogate model with permutation feature importance, LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations), and principal component analysis. Results demonstrate that although each method can successfully recover relevant features, none consistently detects all injected pattern types. These findings high- light a critical gap between existing explainability tools and the requirements of pattern-level cluster interpretation, motivating the development of dedicated pattern detection methodologies.

Scientific machine learning commonly validates models at the level of a subdomain, a benchmark split, or an explanation for one prediction. Yet such local checks cannot establish whether the resulting explanations can be assembled into one globally admissible explanation. We introduce Scientific Explanation-Admissibility Machines (SEAM), a generator-agnostic framework that makes this local-to-global consistency question computable across regions, sensors, regimes, and model components. The finite explanation-sheaf instantiation SEAM-$Ω$ represents each region by a structured explanation with state, closure, and observation channels together with optional contract metadata; compares neighboring explanations on their overlaps; and converts disagreement into a channel-resolved obstruction. This obstruction locates inconsistency and tests competing declared accounts by restricting each repair to the revisions that one account permits. Exact feasibility refutes or retains an account; when exact repair is unavailable, residual-aware regularized records provide a separately labeled empirical attribution. The framework also separates inconsistency from non-identifiability and monitors learned generators under distribution shift. We establish theorems for minimum-cost intervention and conservation-contract detectability, together with companion results for identifiability and closure recoverability. Across nineteen experiments involving synthetic partial differential equation systems and out-of-distribution Fourier neural operator (FNO) monitoring, SEAM detects incompatible explanations even when local predictions are accurate, and attributes failures to specific channels and overlaps. SEAM adds a global explanation-consistency audit to existing solvers and learning models, testing whether their local explanations form a coherent scientific account.

Explaining the predictions of neural networks is a central challenge in trustworthy AI. Existing explanation methods, such as those based on feature attribution or minimal sufficient sets, typically treat input features as independent, which can yield misleading explanations when inputs exhibit structured dependencies. We address this by formalizing explanations as Halpern-Pearl (HP) actual causes, modeling input dependencies using Boolean Structural Causal Models (SCMs). We compute HP causes by applying bound propagation and branch-and-bound techniques, while providing formal guarantees of completeness and minimality. Our experiments show that we substantially outperform brute-force and ILP baselines in scalability, and outperform heuristic search as graph size grows, computing all minimal actual causes on instances with search spaces of up to $2.3\times10^{13}$ candidate (cause, contingency) pairs, on SCMs with up to 28 nodes, within a 180s per-instance budget. In a case study, we further show that ignoring input dependencies inflates the number of reported causes, 14.9% of which are spurious under our SCM.

Citation excerpts can be used to increase the reliability of generated outputs and their faithfulness to cited sources, which is especially important in high-stakes domains such as human and veterinary medicine. However, this does not guarantee that generated claims are faithful to the provided excerpts. We present VetScore, a multi-step evaluation method for veterinary long-form question answering, designed to assess how well are generated claims supported by the provided excerpts, weighing this information by each claim's harm potential. VetScore first segments the output and decomposes it into individual claims, then scores each claim with respect to its harm potential and evaluates its faithfulness to source excerpts, and finally calculates the overall risk-adjusted score. We collect an expert-annotated meta-evaluation dataset, evaluate our approach with a range of judge models, and show that it achieves high correlations with veterinary experts even with small judge models, while offering explainability across multiple dimensions.

Attention-based multiple instance learning (ABMIL) is the predominant approach for slide-level prediction in computational pathology, yet its attention maps provide only local explanations: they indicate where a model focuses but not which histological features drive its predictions or how the model behaves across a patient cohort. We present Semantic Attention Global Explanations (SAGE), a post-hoc framework that extracts global, language-grounded explanations from a frozen ABMIL model. Using a pathology vision-language model, SAGE scores image patches against a dictionary of 25 histological concepts, aggregates these scores according to the model's learned attention, and quantifies how each concept relates to prediction risk across a cohort. Applied to survival prediction using seven TCGA cancer cohorts and three foundation models, SAGE recovered established prognostic features, such as the adverse association of necrosis, while revealing cancer-specific biology, including a favorable angiogenic signature in renal cell carcinoma consistent with known molecular subtypes. Ablation studies demonstrated that these associations depend on the model's learned attention rather than concept prevalence alone, and that the concept dictionary captures much of the prognostic information encoded by the foundation model features. Through semantically-grounded explanations, SAGE provides a scalable, model-agnostic framework for understanding what ABMIL survival models learn, enabling pathologists to interpret model behavior at the cohort level and offering the potential for biomarker identification.

Ensuring trust in AI systems is essential for the safe and ethical integration of machine learning systems into high-stakes domains such as digital health. Key dimensions, including robustness, explainability, fairness, accountability, and privacy, need to be addressed throughout the AI lifecycle, from problem formulation and data collection to model deployment and human interaction. While various contributions address different aspects of trustworthy AI, a focused synthesis on robustness and explainability, especially tailored to the healthcare context, remains limited. This review addresses that need by organizing recent advancements into an accessible framework, highlighting both technical and practical considerations. We present a structured overview of methods, challenges, and solutions, aiming to support researchers and practitioners in developing reliable and explainable AI solutions for digital health. This review article is organized into three main parts. First, we introduce the pillars of trustworthy AI and discuss the technical and ethical challenges, particularly in the context of digital health. Second, we explore application-specific trust considerations across domains such as intensive care, neonatal health, and metabolic health, highlighting how robustness and explainability support trust. Lastly, we present recent advancements in techniques aimed at improving robustness under data scarcity and distributional shifts, as well as explainable AI methods ranging from feature attribution to gradient-based interpretations and counterfactual explanations. This paper is further enriched with detailed discussions of the contributions toward robustness and explainability in digital health, the development of trustworthy AI systems in the era of LLMs, and various evaluation metrics for measuring trust and related parameters such as validity, fidelity, and diversity.

Attribution methods (AMs) assign an importance score to each feature and are widely adopted to explain black-box models. However, most methods can produce variable attribution scores due to stochastic components in their definition. In this paper, we propose a distribution-based framework to capture the stability of attribution scores. In particular, our approach allows to understand the degree of separability in the ranked attribution vector and obtain the largest index for which a feature ranking remains reliable. We further extend this framework to compare AMs based on the robustness of their rankings across a dataset. Through experiments, we demonstrate how to apply our method to evaluate explainer stability. Overall, our approach provides a complementary criterion for evaluating the stability of AMs.

The rapid adoption of deep learning models in high-risk domains has intensified the need for trustworthy Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). However, objectively evaluating explanation fidelity and aligning XAI metrics with human-centered understanding remain critical open challenges. In this work, we propose a model-agnostic metric, the EPC score, which is an extension of the Explainability-Performance Coefficient (EPC), that quantifies explanation quality by explicitly balancing the trade-off between feature selection sparsity and preserved model performance. Through an empirical validation across tabular, text, and image modalities, we show that the EPC score effectively uncovers operational dependencies among network activations, data dimensionality, and explainer performance. Furthermore, we validate the EPC score against independent human-based explanations, proving that higher EPC scores strongly align with human lexical sentiment judgments and spatial visual annotations.

Postoperative adverse events, including mortality and morbidity, remain a major global burden, many of which are preventable through early identification of high-risk patients and targeted perioperative care. Accurate risk stratification is therefore essential. With the growing availability of large-scale electronic health records (EHRs), machine learning (ML) provides a data-driven approach to model complex clinical patterns. However, existing studies vary widely in design, and methodological practices remain fragmented. This scoping review characterizes ML pipelines for surgical risk stratification and outcome prediction using EHR data. We reviewed 190 studies covering the ML workflow, including data preprocessing, algorithm selection, model evaluation, and explainability. Most studies relied on single-center private datasets with limited data modalities, while the scarcity of open-access surgical datasets constrained reproducibility and generalizability. Reporting of key preprocessing steps, including missing data handling, feature selection, and class imbalance, was often incomplete. Conventional ML models and simple neural networks predominated, whereas deep learning and multimodal approaches remained uncommon. Benchmark datasets and standardized evaluation protocols were largely absent, hindering cross-study comparisons. Only about one-third of studies incorporated explainability methods. This review identifies methodological gaps limiting clinically robust postoperative ML tools and provides a structured reference to support more rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful ML development for perioperative care.

Medical imaging has served as primary proving ground for clinical artificial intelligence (AI), yet a decade of intense research has not translated into proportionate bedside impact. We argue that this gap is not primarily a product of insufficient algorithmic performance, inadequate regulation, or limited explainability. Rather, it reflects a structural misalignment, between how AI systems are designed and evaluated, and how clinical decisions are made. This Perspective identifies six interconnected dimensions of this misalignment: the dominance of pixel-only models in a multimodal clinical world; the erosion of physician trust through opaque and inflexible systems; the unfulfilled promise of foundation models in data-sparse medical domains; the persistent bottleneck of non-shareable, under-curated datasets; the gap between validated algorithms and deployable clinical platforms; and the failure of prediction-centric AI to generate actionable clinical guidance. For each dimension, we reframe the problem and propose a path forward, culminating in a vision of agentic, physician-aligned AI that extends, rather than replaces, clinical judgment.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) increasingly support high-stakes decision making by combining complementary information from images and text. While existing explainability methods identify influential image regions or text tokens, they cannot answer a fundamental question: which modality drives a prediction? Consequently, a model may produce the correct output while relying on the wrong source of evidence, masking shortcut learning and unsafe reasoning. We formulate modality attribution as a complementary explainability objective for multimodal foundation models and propose Counterfactual Modality Attribution (CMA), the first framework for quantifying modality-level contributions in MLLMs. CMA generates image-only, text-only, and joint multimodal counterfactuals using coupled diffusion priors and converts them into principled modality attribution scores through a cooperative game-theoretic formulation based on Shapley values. We evaluate CMA on controlled synthetic benchmarks with known ground-truth modality reliance and on a real-world multimodal clinical dataset. CMA correctly identifies the decision-driving modality in 98% of controlled cases and consistently outperforms baselines, revealing failures of cross-modal reasoning that remain invisible to predictive accuracy alone. Our results establish modality attribution as a complementary dimension of explainability beyond feature attribution, providing a principled framework for auditing multimodal foundation models in safety-critical applications.

Security operations centers rely on anomaly detection systems to flag suspicious events. Feature-level explanations for anomaly detectors offer limited value for operational investigations. To effectively handle alerts, analysts need to know contextual relationships and need actionable understanding of the entities involved. This paper introduces an event-centric detector-agnostic approach for explaining cybersecurity alerts in small- to medium-sized enterprise networks. We present (EC)2, a multi-agent framework that performs structured, hypothesis-driven investigation to provide explanations grounded in verifiable evidence. Evaluation results show that the proposed framework improves post-detection analysis by generating operationally meaningful explanations, which also enhance event classification accuracy.

Over the past decade, decision trees have been used to represent controllers (a.k.a. policies) in an explainable way, with dtControl2 as a current state-of-the-art tool. However, for systems that are large or have many corner cases, even such representations tend to be too complex and not human-comprehensible. Unfortunately, reducing the size of the decision tree is not straightforward, as missing just a single crucial case might result in an incorrect controller. We tackle this issue in the setting of Markov decision processes, extending dtControl2 by "$\varepsilon$" functionality: Given an allowed imprecision $\varepsilon \geq 0$, we construct a smaller decision tree, distilling the essence of the controller, while still guaranteeing its $\varepsilon$-optimality. This enables us to provide tunably simpler explanations, omitting a controllable amount of detail. Our tool constructs decision trees that are orders of magnitude smaller than the state of the art.

Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources. That pressure has intensified with general-purpose AI (GPAI): AI built on large language models that can be directed by prompt alone to perform an effectively unbounded range of tasks. We argue that the properties that make these models attractive - their generality, accessibility, and low deployment cost - undermine the conditions under which AI safety has historically been pursued. The safety concepts that public service governance frameworks foreground - accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability - were made tractable by narrow, purpose-built AI, and the mitigations that guidance documents prescribe presuppose exactly what GPAI removes. Accuracy cannot be quantified over unbounded outputs. Bias cannot be disaggregated when outputs are free-text judgements rather than categorical predictions. Explainability gives way to the appearance of explanation, and accountability erodes as outputs are optimized to persuade. We develop this through the case of policing, where the consequences of governance failure are most severe, and show why the same failure is likely to recur across other public services. The two mitigations that dominate policing AI strategy - expert evaluation and human-in-the-loop oversight - both rest on assumptions that GPAI violates. Safety assurance thus shifts from an intrinsic feature of building an AI tool to an optional add-on. We recommend a clear taxonomic distinction between narrow and general-purpose AI in governance documentation, a preference for technological parsimony, a pause on operational deployment of GPAI in policing until adequate evidence exists, and a coordinated national safety infrastructure with the authority to generate that evidence and determine when responsible deployment is achievable.

Computer vision models have become highly effective for medical applications, yet their black-box nature continues to undermine clinician trust. In clinical workflows, chest X-ray classifiers are increasingly paired with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to generate natural-language explanations. However, these systems add linguistic fluency without addressing the underlying opacity of the visual model. With the emergence of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs), whose spline-based components provide inherently interpretable functional units, we investigate whether this architectural transparency can be leveraged to produce more trustworthy textual explanations. We introduce KANEx, the first ever framework that leverages the symbolic transparency of KANs to ground VLM reasoning. This interpretability also made it possible to design KAN-Map, a novel heatmap generation method derived directly from KAN models rather than gradient approximations. We feed these grounded contexts into downstream VLMs for enhanced explainability. Benchmarked on the MIMIC-CXR dataset, we demonstrate that KAN-based architectures with ResNet/ViT baselines demonstrate improved semantic similarity while producing significantly more faithful saliency maps. KAN architectures improve visual localization and downstream reasoning quality by 10%. Our findings suggest that grounding linguistic explanations and visual attributions in mathematically interpretable units is a necessary step toward trustworthy medical AI.

As system complexity has vastly increased, it has become significantly more challenging for a single person or a team to fully understand all aspects of an entire system. Particularly, this holds when considering all the different stages of a system's development life cycle, such as, e.g., design or maintenance. But especially for safety-critical systems it is essential that the final design can be trusted. Because of this, explainability is becoming an important requirement for modern systems. In this paper, we aim to achieve this goal by utilizing Behavior-Driven Development (BDD), where the expected system behavior is given in the form of structured scenarios. These scenarios give a sequence of actions for each functionality, and by this can be directly translated into explanations. We introduce this method of deriving explanations based on the specification as Behavior-Driven Explainability (BDX). While applicable at any development stage or abstraction level, a case study for the explanation of exceptions in a RISC-V processor shows the support this concept adds during system design.

We present MiSS, a black-box, query-based framework for explaining 3D point cloud classifiers through perturbation-relative sufficiency reasoning. MiSS treats a superpoint partition as an interpretable abstraction layer and asks whether the original prediction can be certified from a minimal coalition of geometric regions under a specified perturbation distribution. Unlike abductive explainers that require Boolean feature spaces or white-box logical encodings of the predictor, MiSS separates candidate proposal from verification: a weighted MaxSAT procedure proposes coalitions using a heuristic adaptive cardinality floor, certified exact-size fallback, a safely tightened upper bound, blocking clauses, and a surrogate acquisition heuristic learned from previous oracle evaluations, while a blackbox statistical oracle decides sufficiency from prediction queries. The system returns a statistically verified sufficient coalition as a binary attribution, with minimum cardinality guaranteed when certified search completes. Experiments on ModelNet40 and ShapeNet with PointNet and PointMLP classifiers show higher precision and coverage than rule-based baselines in most settings, with lower explanation time than exhaustive search.

Recent work in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly treats AI models as design materials that have distinctive computational properties to shape design artifacts. Artists learn to work with the model "at play" to explore their emerging properties. The aim of explainability, in this view, is to make visible a crafting and hacking space to enable sustained creative practices with AI. In this chapter, we propose material explainability as a range of activities and artifacts that transform AI models into accessible and inclusive design materials in the workspace of artists, designers, and makers. We present a case study of building a repository of resources to enable artistic explorations of neural audio models in New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) design. Reflecting on our community-building journey and the making of a collection of musical interface designs with a group of artists, we raise three recommendations on enabling the exploration of AI as materials in artistic practices to inspire future XAI design for artists.

Deep neural networks have been widely used in many applications (e.g., computer vision and natural language processing); however, understanding their explainability remains a challenging task. Recently, substantial research has been devoted to improving the explainability of deep neural networks, with most of this work focusing on the regression framework. In this paper, we instead focus on the binary classification framework and adopt a variable-importance framework combined with the idea of lazy training to propose an efficient algorithm for identifying important features. From a theoretical perspective, our method relies on only a minimal set of assumptions and achieves well-controlled error rates. The validity of the proposed method and algorithm is examined through extensive simulation studies and real-data applications.

To effectively integrate AI into high-stakes, critical environments such as healthcare, autonomous driving, and aviation--and to advance toward higher levels of automation and seamless human-AI collaboration--building trust in AI-driven solutions is essential. Trust, in turn, is closely linked to the explainability of AI systems. The rapid advancements in AI across various domains have underscored the challenges of establishing trust, raising increasing interest in AI explainability even more when applied to deep learning. In this context, the present work aims to explore the application of explainability techniques to Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms, specifically within the safety-critical domain of Air Traffic Control (ATC). Using a simplified ATC environment as an initial testbed, an intelligent agent is trained with a reinforcement learning algorithm to make decisions on alternative flight routes that avoid no-fly zones. As a preliminary explainability approach, a saliency map is employed, providing insights into the input features that most significantly influence the agent's decision-making process.

Explainable AI (XAI) in creative practice can be less about technocentric explanation and more about enabling artists to inspect modify and debug models as part of making Yet largescale texttoimage diffusion systems are typically presented as opaque endtoend tools limiting this kind of material engagement We argue that even large models can function as creative materials when their internal structure is made visible and manipulable To support this we propose a handson approach to explainability centred on experimentation and intervention We instantiate this approach with a model bending and an interactive (inspection) interface integrated into ComfyUIs nodebased workflow including interactive layer selection and intervention controls Through qualitative and quantitative analysis of bending interventions in Stable Diffusion 15 we show how manipulating specific components of a diffusion pipeline produces relatively consistent families of visual effects allowing artists to build practical layerlevel intuition about how different parts of the model shape generated images

Instance-level explanations aim to reveal the rationale behind a model's decisions for a specific graph. Previous methods explain graph neural networks (GNNs) by selecting important edges to induce subgraphs, where edge importance is assessed by perturbing each edge and observing changes in the model predictions. However, they often neglect the synergistic effects among edges, which are crucial for accurately characterizing edge importance. To address this issue, we propose SeeExplainer, a parameter-free explainer to interpret GNNs. Specifically, we first introduce a granular-ball graph refinement mechanism that decomposes a graph into several disjoint granular-balls with no fixed size, and utilize them as nodes to construct a structural graph. This process can better capture the synergistic effects among edges. Then, we perturb nodes and edges in the structural graph to generate explanatory subgraphs based on their respective contributions. Experiments on several graph classification datasets of different networks show that SeeExplainer outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Numerous studies have analyzed the use of hybrid quantum-classical convolutional neural networks as a promising alternative to classical deep learning. However, network components on quantum hardware impose fundamental limitations, while the scalability of quantum circuits leads to trainability issues. In this work, we investigate whether small, classically-emulated quantum circuit components can play a meaningful role within complex models, offering an alternative to purely classical convolutional architectures. To this end, we present a systematic study of the effectiveness of a Hybrid Quantum-inspired Convolutional Neural Network (HQiCNN) compared with a parameter-matched classical Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) that differs only in an intermediate dense neural layer. Both models are evaluated on two real-world medical datasets while systematically varying the different hyperparameters, ensuring a fair model comparison that is both dataset and hyperparameter independent. The results show that no architecture consistently dominates the other: the HQiCNN achieves its largest gains in intermediate-data regimes, whereas the CNN reaches the highest accuracies for the largest training sets in both datasets. Furthermore, removing entanglement produces comparable performance while enabling substantially better scalability of quantum simulations, and richer observable sets become beneficial only when sufficient training data are available. Finally, we propose two SHAP-based explainability tools for comparing the predictions between both models, $|SHAP|$IoU and $EMD_{pos}$ metric, to demonstrate that both architectures consistently attend to anatomically plausible regions. Thus, we provide a comprehensive benchmark showing that, under certain conditions, hybrid quantum-inspired models are an alternative that can offer benefits in practical tasks such as medical image classification.

Automated detection of vision impairing retina-based ocular conditions from fundus images is important for early screening, timely referral and reducing dependency on specialist-only assessment, for which neural network-based deep learning (DL) models have been widely utilized. However, explainability of the DL frameworks remains a major bottleneck for clinical adoption, particularly when model decisions are not linked to retinal regions that are clinically meaningful. To address this issue, this study presents CounterFundus, a novel CycleGAN-driven counterfactual explainability framework, integrating EfficientNet-B5-based retinal disease detection with visually interpretable disease-to-normal fundus image translation. For each pathological image, the counterfactual yielded by the CycleGAN generator represents an estimated healthy counterpart and the resultant difference map is utilized to localize disease-associated retinal changes. Unlike conventional post-hoc saliency methods, CounterFundus provides counterfactual explanations through visually plausible disease-to-normal retinal translation. Thereafter, to quantify the spatial agreement between counterfactual difference maps and classifier saliency, the Counterfactual-Classifier Alignment Score (CCAS) is introduced, embedding Spearman correlation, binary IoU and pointing accuracy into a single assessment protocol. To this end, EigenCAM-aligned evaluation demonstrates that the generated counterfactual explanations remain spatially consistent with classifier-relevant retinal evidence across all CCAS dimensions. Along with that, ablation studies further confirm that CCAS-filtered counterfactual augmentation improves the downstream classification performance in fundus images, establishing CounterFundus as a clinically-grounded, explainable artificially intelligence (XAI) framework for retinal disease detection.

Detecting media bias automatically is difficult because biased framing is often subtle, yet in domains such as news analysis, accurate predictions alone are insufficient without explanations that reflect the model's underlying reasoning. We present a multi-dimensional evaluation of explainability in encoder-based media bias detection using the Bias Annotations By Experts (BABE) dataset. Specifically, we study BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers (base and large variants) along three complementary axes: predictive performance, explanation plausibility (token-level alignment with expert rationales), and mechanistic faithfulness (whether compact sets of attention heads recover predictive signal under counterfactual rationale masking). To induce variation in plausibility, we additionally investigate attention-supervised finetuning, which incorporates expert rationale annotations as an auxiliary training signal. Attention supervision serves as an intervention on attribution plausibility, while the effectiveness of attribution methods varies substantially across architectures. Circuit analysis further reveals substantial variation in mechanistic recoverability across architectures, suggesting that model scale alone does not determine circuit compressibility. Taken together, our findings suggest that predictive performance, attribution plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness characterize different aspects of model behavior and should be evaluated separately when studying explainability in media bias detection.

This paper proposes ConceptCF, a method for counterfactual generation that operates on human-interpretable concepts. In high-stakes domains such as healthcare and predictive maintenance, artificial intelligence models can increase efficiency and safety. Explainability is key to ensure these models rely on causal relationships rather than spurious correlations. Counterfactual explanations identify minimal modifications that would change a model's predictions. Existing methods for time series operate on individual points or subsequences without ensuring interpretability of the mutations. ConceptCF instead modifies meaningful concepts. As a result we can provide explanations in terms of these concepts, for example ``the model's prediction would be Sit' instead of Walk' if you increase the scale of the movement''. In this paper, the concepts are constructed through time series decomposition, resulting in concepts such as scale, and frequency bands. Counterfactuals are generated using a genetic algorithm that optimizes the concept mutations. Evaluation against five state-of-the-art approaches demonstrates that ConceptCF consistently achieves top-tier performance across validity, confidence, proximity, sparsity and plausibility metrics.

Predictive process monitoring supports the optimization and control of operational business processes by forecasting the future state or outcome of ongoing cases. While deep neural networks have achieved strong performance for these tasks by modeling sequential dependencies in event logs, their black-box nature limits trust and practical adoption. Feature attribution methods are often used to address this, but applying them directly poses a dilemma: event-level attributions impose high computational complexity for long traces, while explanations based on aggregated trace representations often fail to capture the underlying control-flow dynamics. To address this issue, we propose a local post-hoc explainability method for deep neural networks in outcome prediction. The method relies on a control-flow-aware segmentation algorithm that partitions a trace into meaningful segments and supports the computation of segment-level SHAP explanations. This makes it possible to identify which parts of a trace influence a prediction and which change points steer the case toward the predicted outcome. We assess the proposed segmentation method on a synthetic dataset with known process logic, where meaningful change points can be explicitly verified, and we demonstrate its usefulness on real-world event logs from a loan application process and an administrative process of a Dutch municipality.

Money mule accounts are critical facilitators of financial fraud, yet detecting them at scale remains challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of transactional and behavioural data. We present an end-to-end pipeline for customer-level mule detection comprising three stages: (1) a LightGBM classifier trained on 280 engineered features spanning transaction patterns, account demographics, network topology, and temporal behaviour; (2) a TreeSHAP attribution layer that decomposes each prediction into feature contributions; and (3) a large language model (LLM) module that converts SHAP attributions into analyst-facing natural-language narratives. We evaluate across three open-weight LLM families and assess explanation quality through analyst feedback. In a live production deployment, the system achieves a yield rate of 89%, up from 61% under the incumbent rule-based system, with monthly alert volume expanding from 211 to 302, reflecting broader true-positive coverage rather than increased noise. This corresponds to a 60% incremental adverse detection beyond existing review workflows, substantially outperforming the rule-based approach. Qualitative feedback from analysts indicates that LLM-generated narratives reduce cognitive load during alert triage. We further discuss implications of deploying LLM-augmented explainability in regulated financial environments.

This position paper argues that claims about explanation stability are scientifically invalid without cross method validation. Just as statistical significance requires the test statistic to be specified, stability should either be evaluated across multiple attribution paradigms or explicitly scoped to the computational objective of a single method. In controlled chest X ray experiments, DenseNet201, ResNet50V2, and InceptionV3 achieved AUC values above 99%, yet their stability rankings reversed across attribution methods. LayerCAM ranked InceptionV3 as the most stable model, with an IoU of 0.777, whereas GradCAM++ favored DenseNet201 and reduced InceptionV3 stability score by 17.3%. These findings demonstrate that explanation stability is an emergent property of the model method pair rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the model alone. We therefore argue that explanation based claims should be validated across multiple attribution methods and that regulatory submissions should explicitly specify the attribution operators used to avoid creating illusory safety assurances.

In this paper, we present a comprehensive framework for assessing the explainability of various XAI methods, such as LIME and SHAP, across multiple datasets and machine learning models, with the ultimate goal of creating a unified multidimensional explainability score. Our methodology focuses on three key aspects of explainability: fidelity, simplicity, and stability. We leverage benchmarking experiments to systematically evaluate these aspects and use the insights gained to construct an offline knowledge base. This knowledge base captures the explainability scores for each registered model and serves as a valuable resource for context-dependent evaluation of explainability. By analyzing the complementary characteristics and metadata of AI models, datasets, and XAI methods, the knowledge base will enable the estimation of explainability scores for previously unseen datasets and models. Properties like fidelity, simplicity, and stability may vary significantly based on the dataset, underlying model, and domain expertise of the end user. We demonstrate our framework by applying it to three open-source datasets, discussing the implications of the obtained results in relation to the characteristics of the datasets. Our work contributes to the growing field of XAI by providing a robust and versatile tool for evaluating and comparing the explainability of various XAI methods, ultimately supporting the development of more transparent and trustworthy AI systems.

Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains. Although prior research has proposed frameworks, patterns, and user-centered approaches to support explainability, there is limited empirical understanding of how existing Requirements Engineering (RE) practices support explainability requirements across the RE lifecycle, especially in an industrial context. This paper reports early findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated using established RE techniques. We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study with eight practitioners at Daimler Truck, employing think-aloud protocols and moderated group discussions across requirements elicitation, specification, and validation steps. Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty. These findings indicate that current RE practices provide limited support to systematically address explainability requirements. The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.

Vision Transformers (ViTs) are difficult to interpret because current methods of relevance propagation and attention flow do not fully consider some key architectural features, such as the uneven importance of attention heads and residual connections. Prior approaches typically assume uniform importance across attention heads; furthermore, they model skip connections as identity paths, leading to inaccurate relevance attribution. To address these issues, we introduce GradSkip, a novel relevance propagation method for ViTs based on adaptive head weighting and skip-aware propagation. GradSkip models the different importance of the attention heads and dynamically distributes relevance between the attention and residual paths. Experiments on ImageNet1K and BloodMNIST demonstrate a state-of-the-art faithfulness of GradSkip while requiring over 14 times fewer GFLOPs than the best-performing existing approaches. Additional evaluations using transformer-based segmentation confirm improved localization and alignment with ground-truth regions.

As the accuracy of speech deepfake detection improves with the use of self-supervised representations such as wav2vec 2.0 and HuBERT, understanding why the speech is classified as bona fide or deepfake remains an open challenge. In pursuit of more trustworthy and interpretable artificial intelligence, we introduce a phoneme-level analysis framework that connects model predictions to measurable phonetic units. Our post-hoc explainability method is generally applicable to a variety of speech deepfake detection systems based on convolutional neural networks since it leverages Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping in conjunction with speech recognition to generate saliency maps aligned with phonemes and pauses. This pipeline reveals statistically significant attack- and speaker-dependent phonetic cues associated with spoofed speech in terms that humans can understand. Experiments using ASVspoof 5 show comparable detection performance to similar architectures while providing linguistic interpretations across speakers and spoofing conditions.

We present a Procrustes-conditioned Joint End-to-end Top-K Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) for extracting cross-seed universal features from independently trained BERT models. Cross-seed feature universality is a fundamental challenge in mechanistic interpretability: because dictionary learning is non-convex, independently trained networks learn misaligned feature spaces, so apparently identical features may differ by random initialization. We address this by computing an orthogonal Procrustes rotation between seeds' activation spaces before joint SAE training, combining Top-K sparsity, end-to-end downstream optimization, and an auxiliary dead-feature revival loss based on previous SAE literature. Evaluating on five independent seed pairs (ten BERT models) across three benchmark datasets (SST-2, Stanford Politeness, TweetEval Emotion), our full pipeline produces more universal features (Pearson r $\geq$ 0.70 across seeds) than post-hoc alignment baselines on all three datasets. A minimal qualitative analysis confirms that high-universality features encode interpretable sociolinguistic patterns.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) systems, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, LLaMA, Copilot, Stable Diffusion by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Stability AI, respectively, are revolutionizing cybersecurity, enabling both automated defense and sophisticated attacks. These technologies power real-time threat detection, phishing defense, secure code generation, and vulnerability exploitation at unprecedented scales. Following a rapid surge where LLM-generated malware grew to account for an estimated 50% of detected threats by 2025, up from just 2% in 2021, navigating this highly automated threat landscape in 2026 demands next-generation security frameworks. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the beneficial and malicious applications of LLMs in cybersecurity, including zero-day detection, DevSecOps, federated learning, synthetic content analysis, and explainable AI (XAI). Drawing on a review of over 70 academic papers, industry reports, and technical documents, this work synthesizes insights from real-world case studies across platforms like Google Play Protect, Microsoft Defender, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Apple App Store, OpenAI Plugin Stores, Hugging Face Spaces, and GitHub, alongside emerging initiatives like the SAFE Framework and AI-driven anomaly detection. We conclude with practical recommendations for responsible and transparent LLM deployment and trustworthy AI, including model watermarking, adversarial defense, and cross-industry collaboration, setting a new benchmark for rigorous, holistic cybersecurity research at the intersection of AI and threat defense, and offering a roadmap for secure, scalable LLM systems that serves as a critical reference for researchers, engineers, and security leaders navigating the complex challenges of AI-driven cybersecurity.

Deep learning image classifiers achieve strong predictive performance yet remain opaque in how decisions are formed. A model may predict correctly while relying on irrelevant cues, shortcut associations, peripheral structures, or device level artifacts instead of task relevant regions. On large scale datasets this opacity is especially problematic, since inspecting heatmaps one sample at a time cannot scale to thousands of predictions. We propose Relevance Based Model Decision Explainability (ReMoDEx), a framework for systematic, dataset scale assessment of model decision behaviour in image classification. ReMoDEx defines a stepwise pipeline: model inference, target class selection, relevance map generation, heatmap standardisation, similarity based grouping of patterns, cluster level interpretation, and spatial relevance assessment. Local methods GradCAM++, Integrated Gradients, Occlusion Sensitivity, and Layerwise Relevance Propagation are each combined independently with a single global module that summarises an entire set of relevance maps into a few decision strategy clusters, replacing sample by sample inspection with an automatic, scalable summary. To demonstrate ReMoDEx, we applied it to a VGG16 based classifier distinguishing COVID-19, Normal, Lung Opacity, and Viral Pneumonia. The classifier showed stable performance (86.27% test accuracy, 0.9624 test AUC). However, each explainer combined with the global module consistently produced two recurring strategies: central thoracic region decisions and border/corner sensitive decisions, indicating possible shortcut learning that conventional metrics could not reveal. Masked image validation confirmed that model confidence and predicted class changed when central or peripheral regions were occluded. ReMoDEx thus provides a scalable relevance based decision assessment framework and an essential complement to accuracy based evaluation.

In this work, we propose a unified approach for diagnosing misclassification and assessing the robustness of black-box classifiers. Central to our method is an optimization framework that modifies an instance so that the classifier predicts a specified target label, while ensuring that the modification remains easily explainable. The objective function contains two components: an explainability-aware $L_0$ (XA-$L_0$) penalty that promotes sparse and interpretable modifications, and a classifier loss objective that steers the perturbed instance toward the desired output. This integrated optimization formulation is used both to identify the underlying causes of misclassification and to evaluate robustness by determining how an instance can change within a tolerance region before being reassigned to another class. To quantify robustness, we introduce the Tolerance Region Confusion Matrix (TOR-Confusion Matrix), which measures a classifier's susceptibility by modeling the class-to-class transition probabilities induced by tolerance-bounded perturbations. We validate the proposed method on both image and tabular datasets, demonstrating its ability to jointly deliver interpretability and robustness assessment.

Foundation Models for Electronic Health Records (FEMRs) are pretrained on large-scale structured patient data, enabling them to convert longitudinal patient trajectories into generalizable representations for diverse clinical prediction tasks. Despite their effectiveness, FEMRs remain black-box models, raising concerns about bias, interpretability, and clinical trust. To address this, we propose the first token-level explainability approach for FEMRs. We train a Transformer-based surrogate model on input-output pairs from the FEMR across two prediction tasks, approximating its behavior while preserving temporal dynamics. We identify the most influential tokens, providing insights into how FEMRs leverage different aspects of patient history for predictions. To evaluate clinical relevance, we introduce a novel clinical alignment metric that quantifies the correspondence between the surrogate model's key tokens and clinically validated features. Our results demonstrate that the surrogate closely approximates FEMR predictions and that token-level explanations align well with clinical knowledge, offering a practical framework for interpretable and trustworthy clinical AI.

The adoption of non-parametric machine learning models for regulatory capital estimation introduces a fundamental governance challenge: the inability to explain model outputs in a manner auditable by supervisory bodies. This 'black box' problem remains a major barrier to the adoption of Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and related ML architectures in ICAAP and CCAR workflows despite their predictive advantages over traditional parametric approaches. This paper addresses this barrier through SHARC (SHAP for Regulatory Capital), an explainability framework for the Hybrid GPR-HS architecture and its stress-testing extension. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), derived from cooperative game theory and satisfying the properties of Local Accuracy, Missingness, Consistency, and Efficiency, are applied to Stressed Value-at-Risk (SVaR) outputs under three macro scenarios: West Asia War, Climate Risk, and AI Bubble/Regulatory Burden. SHARC decomposes SVaR into baseline, mean-driven, and volatility-driven components, enabling transparent linkage between scenario design and capital outcomes. Two findings emerge. First, SHARC consistently links non-linear SVaR outputs to underlying scenario inputs, confirming framework fidelity and providing auditable traceability of capital drivers. Second, under stress conditions, the mean return component (directional loss magnitude) dominates the variance component (volatility baseline) in determining capital levels, with implications for capital limit-setting, position management, and hedging strategy. The results establish SHARC as a regulator-aligned explainability layer that makes the Hybrid GPR-HS framework fully auditable and consistent with FRTB, ICAAP Pillar 2, and CCAR transparency requirements.

Graph eXplainable AI (G-XAI) is increasingly important for making Graph Neural Networks interpretable and accountable. While a growing number of explainers are available, choosing the right method and assessing the trustworthiness of its outputs remains unclear. Consistent evaluation practices and actionable guidance are still missing, hindering practical adoption. In this paper, we introduce a unified, quantitative benchmarking framework for G-XAI that requires no ground-truth assumptions. We formalize tabular explainability metrics for graph data, evaluating topological structure and node features as independent components. Our large-scale benchmarking study identifies explainers that consistently lie on the Pareto front across metric pairs and tasks, establishing robustly non-dominated solutions - while confirming that no single explainer achieves universal superiority. We distill our findings into actionable G-XAI usability guidelines to support Machine Learning practitioners in evaluating and deploying trustworthy GNN-based pipelines.

Temporal graphs are ubiquitous in real-world applications and Temporal Graph Networks (TGNs) have achieved superior predictive accuracy. Understanding which historical events drive model predictions can enhance trustworthiness of TGNs. Existing explanation methods overlook the memory module, the core component that records and updates node histories, leaving the influence of past events unexplored. To address this, we attribute TGNs predictions through the topology attribution tree and memory backtracking tree. The topology attribution tree captures the influence of neighbors and their memory vectors, then the memory backtracking tree quantifies how historical events shape node memory vectors. We apply the LRP in TGNs, ensuring that the total contribution of events equals the logits of model. Finally, top-k selection may be unfaithful due to the nonlinear mapping from logits to probabilities, we design optimization objectives to identify the important events. Experiments on nine temporal graph datasets, spanning node property prediction, link prediction tasks and graph classification tasks, show that our method provides faithful explanations and outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/yazhengliu/MemExplainer

Adversarial attacks on cybersecurity classifiers pose a dual threat: degrading predictions and destabilising the SHAP-based explanations that security analysts rely on to understand and triage alerts. We extend our prior MLP conference study to Random Forest and XGBoost across four tabular security datasets (phishing URLs, UNSW-NB15, NF-ToN-IoT, HIKARI-2021), evaluating five attacks including three black-box methods applicable to non-differentiable tree models. We introduce the Explainability Stability Index (ESI), a scalar metric computed from TreeSHAP attribution drift under adversarial perturbation, reported on the same [0,1] scale as the Robustness Index (RI). A key finding is that gradient-based black-box attacks (ZOO) produce degenerate results against XGBoost (apparent RI ~0.98) due to piecewise-constant prediction surfaces, while score-based Square Attack reveals genuine vulnerability (RI ~0.36). These degenerate perturbations still drive substantial attribution drift: XGBoost ESI ~0.06-0.16 despite near-perfect ZOO robustness, versus 0.14-0.29 for RF, showing that prediction robustness and explanation stability are distinct axes requiring joint measurement. A two-axis framework (gradient dependence, query efficiency) explains the observed attack ranking and yields practical guidance for tree ensemble evaluation. A step-size ablation explains a counterintuitive PGD anomaly on z-score normalised tabular data.

In recent years, large language models have achieved remarkable success and have seen growing adoption in financial applications. At the same time, explainability remains critical in finance, a domain characterized by high stakes and strict regulatory requirements. Although numerous methods have been proposed to explain black box machine learning models, the majority of these approaches are designed for general purpose tasks and do not incorporate domain specific knowledge. In this work, we study the explainability of financial textual data modeled by large language models through the lens of the Shapley value. Specifically, we investigate whether Shapley based attributions align with established financial domain knowledge. Through rigorous theoretical analysis and extensive empirical evaluations, we demonstrate that Shapley values can yield explanations that are consistent with financial reasoning and can offer meaningful insights into the model's behavior in text based financial applications.