Explainable AI Methods

Recommender systems mediate everyday consumption, offering a promising channel for encouraging sustainable choices. Prior research shows that explanations influence users' perceptions of recommendations and can support more informed decisions. We argue that explanations can also serve as behavioral nudges by foregrounding sustainability information at the moment of choice. This study investigates how different behavioral framings of sustainability information in recommendation explanations affect user choices and perceptions. Using generative AI, we generate sustainability-aware explanations by drawing on nudge theory and validate them through human evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge audits. Building on this foundation, we conduct two randomized studies (N = 529) in a low involvement domain (instant coffee) and a high involvement domain (hotel bookings), in which participants choose among preference matched recommendations accompanied by these explanations. Our results show that, across both domains, merely disclosing sustainability information in explanations does not change choices, whereas framing that information or invoking a descriptive social norm significantly increases sustainable selections and eases decision-making. Notably, perception and behavior diverge, as plain disclosure improves explanation evaluations without translating into more sustainable selection behavior. Our work demonstrates how LLMs can generate theory-grounded explanations at scale, pointing toward practical explanation-based interventions for social good. We conclude by discussing implications for adaptive explanation design with generative AI.

We present AIriskEval-edu Demo, a platform that audits the pedagogical quality of instructional explanations and provides explainable audit results. The platform evaluates an explanation against a rubric covering five dimensions of pedagogical risk: factual accuracy, depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. For each dimension, it returns a binary decision and a confidence score. Detected risks also include a natural-language rationale and, except for Depth and Completeness, a localized evidence span. The platform integrates GPT-5.5 through an external API and a self-hosted Llama 3.1 8B evaluator that runs on consumer-grade GPUs. The local evaluator is fine-tuned on AIriskEval-edu, a dataset of K-12 instructional explanations with risk and explainability annotations. The platform operates in two modes: in AI mode, both evaluators assess stored explanations generated under six simulated teacher profiles, each representing a distinct pedagogical behavior and potential risk; in human mode, the local evaluator audits user-written explanations in real time. The local evaluator outperforms GPT-5.5 on most reported metrics, offering educational institutions a practical way to keep audited content within their own infrastructure.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

A correct answer can conceal why an agent succeeded. Once agents change their information state during evaluation, correctness no longer distinguishes intended reasoning from answer acquisition. Outcome evidence and exposure detection do not establish whether success depended on an acquired target; we call this missing evaluation object success provenance. AcquaBench audits it through matched CLEAN, GOLD, and SHAM value substitution on four standardized surfaces with joint qid-clustered analysis. CLEAN retains benchmark-authorized information. GOLD makes the correct target available. SHAM preserves source structure and exposure opportunity but substitutes a matched incorrect value. GOLD minus CLEAN measures the total score response to correct-target availability; GOLD minus SHAM tests whether that response tracks target correctness beyond matched source exposure. In D0, GOLD exceeds SHAM by 19.1 to 25.9 percentage points, showing that success follows the correct value. In D2, GOLD still exceeds SHAM under distributed sufficiency while coloc no longer transfers as a high-score marker, with AUROC 0.376 and 0.142. Behavioral dependence can thus persist beyond this probe's intended observation unit. In model comparison, a supported 5.0-point CLEAN score gap compresses to a raw GOLD difference of -0.6 points without establishing rank inversion. Agent benchmarks should report success together with whether the evaluated information state supported it.

We introduce a novel learning problem: decoding gaze into natural language descriptions of human goals across diverse visual tasks. Unlike prior work, which frames gaze decoding as a discriminative task over predefined categories, we formulate it as a generative learning problem: training a model to produce free-form descriptions that capture the rich nuances and open-ended nature of human intentions beyond fixed labels. To this end, we introduce Gazette, the first gaze-to-text decoding framework. Based on multimodal large language models (MLLMs), Gazette learns to decode gaze scanpaths into natural language for goals that may extend beyond categorical labels and require articulation in natural language. To help Gazette filter out individual differences in gaze behavior and learn the goal-specific spatiotemporal dynamics crucial for generating accurate natural language goal descriptions, we propose a novel strategy that leverages the encyclopedic knowledge and reasoning abilities of a large language model to synthesize natural language explanations of goal-directed attentional behavior called think-aloud transcripts. Instruction tuning on these synthetic narratives allows Gazette to achieve state-of-the-art performance in gaze decoding across multiple tasks, demonstrating its generalizability and versatility, thereby enabling gaze to serve as a powerful, non-intrusive cue for inferring human goals and intentions in diverse scenarios.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are demonstrating significant capabilities in medical tasks like radiology analysis, yet providing faithful and interpretable explanations remains a key consideration for their responsible deployment in clinical settings. However, existing explanation methods, such as the widely used FIxLIP framework, often struggle with the fine-grained nature of modern tokenizers. The tokenization problem fragments clinical concepts---splitting terms like "saddle embolus" into scattered, meaningless subwords---which leads to noisy, semantically incoherent cross-modal attributions. Such fragmentation also results in a combinatorial explosion of interaction possibilities, obscuring the model's true reasoning. To address this, we introduce ParseFIxLIP, an extension that incorporates the Tree-Gram Parsing into the Banzhaf interaction game used by FIxLIP. This semantically informed strategy utilizes dependency parsing trees to define explanation players by grouping related text tokens into semantically coherent units. Our smart_depth grouping strategy, merging tokens according to spaCy token dependency tree, successfully mitigates concept fragmentation, yielding substantially more interpretable cross-modal interactions by unifying complex medical concepts. Quantitatively, while baselines struggled with the high dimensionality of long captions, our parsing approach maintained statistical robustness and semantic parsimony. Qualitative analysis on BiomedCLIP, validated on medical imagery (ROCOv2) and general examples, confirms that the approach accurately captures the synergistic influence of grouped words on model predictions. In conclusion, our work offers intuitive and clinically relevant insights into VLM decision-making, fulfilling the critical need for coherent explanations in the medical domain.

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.

Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) originated within the Logic Programming community in the Nineties as a framework for combining symbolic learning with declarative knowledge representation. Nowadays, mature ILP frameworks exist and they are capable of learning complex, non-monotonic hypotheses, thus broadening both the modeling capabilities and the scope of real-world applications of ILP. This work is primarily based on the FastLAS2 framework and aims to generate simple, interpretable hypotheses to help clarify the weather bulletins issued by OSMER FVG, the Regional Meteorological Observatory of the Italian region of Friuli Venezia-Giulia. In this paper we present a pipeline that, starting from simulated meteorological raw data and from OSMERs' bulletins (used as ground truth), extracts data as ASP facts and generates ILP examples. From such examples an explanatory hypothesis is then inferred via FastLAS2. Such a hypothesis (translated into natural language) explains the weather forecast issued by human experts, and in particular the rationale behind experts' choices of specific symbols in the bulletin pictogram (the symbol-annotated meteorological map of the forecast). The proposed approach is general, not specific to any particular region and it can equally be applied to bulletins from other sources and to different regions.

We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to directly optimize the faithfulness of self-explanations - the extent to which a model's generated reasoning accurately reflects its internal decision-making process. While existing work focuses on evaluating faithfulness or using inference-time prompting frameworks to improve an LLM's self-explanation's tractability, these approaches do not provide a mechanism to directly optimize a model's parameters to generate faithful self-explanations. We bridge this gap by modifying existing faithfulness metrics into an RL training objective. We investigate (1) if models can be trained to accurately detect factors that affect their decisions, and (2) whether RL can directly optimize for the disclosure of these factors thereby improving LLM self-explanations' faithfulness. We experiment with two intervention types: random-word insertions and user-bias insertions, using a per-sample reward derived from the Phi-CCT correlation metric. RL fine-tuned Llama3.1-8B and Qwen3-8B show substantial improvements on the Phi-CCT faithfulness metric, with in-distribution scores rising from near-zero to as high as 0.664, and out-of-distribution scores reaching up to 0.691 on held-out tasks such as StrategyQA. Cross-intervention generalization is weaker but more interesting: a priori we would not expect a model trained only on random word insertions to generalize to user-bias phrases, yet Llama3.1-8B shows non-zero transfer in this direction. The reverse direction and Qwen3-8B do not replicate this, indicating model-dependent and setup-dependent effects we cannot yet explain. Lastly we analyze model behavior to rule out reward gaming behaviors that often plague RL training. Ultimately, we show that models can be trained to implicitly identify influential factors and disclose them, offering a scalable path toward reducing unfaithful reasoning in LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic answers, yet factual errors remain difficult to detect, localize, explain, and verify. Existing hallucination benchmarks often provide response-level labels, with limited support for identifying the exact erroneous content, explaining why it is incorrect, or selecting the correct factual answer. We introduce HalluTruthQA, a fine-grained benchmark for hallucination evaluation in Arabic question answering. The benchmark contains 2,400 expert-curated examples across four knowledge-intensive domains: Islamic knowledge, history, science, and geography. Each example pairs an Arabic question and a model-generated answer with a verified reference answer, a binary hallucination label, and six candidate answers for factual verification. Hallucinated answers additionally include character-level erroneous spans, human-written explanations, and macro- and micro-level hallucination types. We evaluate four open-source LLMs, ALLaM-7B, Falcon-H1R-7B, Qwen3-32B, and SILMA, in a zero-shot setting across hallucination detection, span-level localization, factual verification, and explanation evaluation. Results show that these tasks capture different abilities: no single model performs best across all tasks. The best scores are 0.880 Macro-F1 for detection, 0.516 F1-Sp for localization, 0.852 LO-Score for factual verification, and 0.644 for explanation evaluation. These findings show that hallucination evaluation should move beyond response-level detection toward the localization, verification, and explanation of factual errors.

Progresses have been made on understanding emotion mechanisms of large language models (LLMs). However, how to explain emotion in LLMs, or even what constitutes good explanations, are less clear. Emotion representations, components, circuits are widely recoverable, but as explanations of a model's own computation they are circular; the emotion space dimensions tend to be arbitrary and non-terminating. A pressing question to ask is whether a more primitive set of internal variables does the work: the semantic primes of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). Across four instruction-tuned LLMs (Llama-1B, Gemma-2B, Gemma-9B, OLMo-7B), experiments show that the NSM primes are (1) recoverable internal elements; and (2) on the reference model, intervening with a prime based direction controls emotion about three times as strongly, and twice as selectively, as the best appraisal based direction; and (3) the model treats a prime based explication as interchangeable with the corresponding emotion. These evidences suggest that NSM primes seem to be better explanans for emotion in LLMs than many alternative options according to scientific explanations criteria.

Attention and saliency heatmaps are widely used to explain medical Vision-Language Model (VLM) outputs on chest X-rays, yet whether they truly highlight the image evidence driving predictions has not been causally tested. We audit faithfulness via overlap with radiologist bounding boxes on PadChest (n=637), attribution mass within radiologist masks on CheXlocalize (n=643), and 16x16 patch-occlusion maps that record which regions, when hidden, change the answer. We study three MedGemma-4B variants, cross-family probes on LLaVA-RAD and Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, and the specialist CheXagent-2-3b, with two CXR-trained classifiers (DenseNet121, ResNet50) as positive controls. A heatmap is faithful only if the model uses the image and attention concentrates on regions whose occlusion alters the prediction. No evaluated VLM meets both criteria. MedGemma and Qwen3-VL use the image, but attention anti-correlates with patch-occlusion importance (rho < 0 with 95% bootstrap CIs below zero). LLaVA-RAD's attention correlates positively, but the model is almost text-only (99.1% text-only agreement, near-zero causal mass), so correlation ties two near-zero signals. Attention also misses annotated anatomy: overlap with true regions never beats shifted or random controls, and no method places more than 22% of its mass inside radiologist masks. The two CXR classifiers pass all metrics, indicating the failure is specific to VLM heatmaps, not the evaluation. These heatmaps are visually reassuring but not faithful; clinical explanations require controlled localization metrics and causal perturbation, not visual inspection alone.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for network automation, yet their output quality and inference cost can vary substantially across LLM families. We present HuGLEN, a stepwise evaluation pipeline that uses an LLM-as-a-judge together with a small set of expert ratings to enable scalable and reproducible comparison of candidate LLMs, and to rank them using a quality efficiency score (QES). We demonstrate HuGLEN for translating outputs from an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) model for the optical network quality of transmission (QoT) estimation task into operator-friendly explanations. Our results show that a medium-sized LLM (12B parameters) achieves the highest QES, indicating the best trade-off between explanation quality and efficiency. Overall, HuGLEN reduces the human-labeling burden while supporting consistent model selection for operator-facing automation tasks.

Financial statements (FS) such as Balance Sheet (BS), Income Statement (IS) and Cash-flow Statement (CS) summarize the annual financial performance of a company. FS are widely used for evaluating corporate governance, credit appraisal, risk analysis, validate taxation, make investment decisions etc. Financial auditing is a complex and knowledge-intensive discipline whose one important aim is ensuring integrity, accuracy, fairness and absence of material misstatement in the published FS. Given the importance of FS, there are incentives to hide, omit or falsify information to misrepresent the true financial health of the company; e.g., reduce tax liabilities, or increase investor confidence. Given the complex, time-consuming and expertise-dependent nature of auditing, auditors would benefit from an AI-assisted system that automatically detects instances of misinformation in the given FS and identify likely sources of this misinformation in the financial data. In this paper, we present unsupervised techniques to identify misinformation in FS, and also generate explanations as to the financial variables that are likely sources of misinformation. The auditor can then explore in more detail the associated data sources and business processes to validate these suggestions. A crucial feature of our approach is the use of past corpus of FS and associated audit reports to generate insights, which help in providing assistance. We demonstrate the efficacy of these techniques on a large corpus of 11,460 FS over 5 years and associated audit reports. This paper integrates and adds more novel contributions over the previously reported research (Shinde et al., 2022)\cite{SVAP22}, (Vaishampayan et al., 2022)\cite{VSPP22}, (Pawar et al., 2023)\cite{PAPV23}, which we have used as the foundation for our AI-assisted Auditor Assistance system.

Early and timely screening of laryngeal cancer is crucial for improving clinical outcomes. In recent years, NBI endoscopy has become a standard diagnostic tool for the detection of laryngeal lesions. However, its effective use requires well-trained clinicians and the procedure is time-consuming and subject to interobserver variability. In this context, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising solution to support clinical decision-making. In this work, we proposed applying transformer and attention mechanism for analyzing the narrow band imaging and distinguish benign and malignant lesions. Results show it has good classification performance with F1 (82.72%), accuracy(82.33%). In addition, the result of laryngeal cancer screening is explainable for clinicians. The explainability is utilizing the state of art segmentation method (MedSAM) to provide the useful pathological information area for clinicians. The proposed methodology fusing classification and segmentation provides a translating on laryngeal cancer screening.

Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) continue to achieve state-of-the-art performance across various natural language processing tasks. However, their subpar performance on seemingly elementary problems, such as basic arithmetic, raises concerns about model reliability, safety, and ethical deployment. In this study, we demonstrate that the performance of a vanilla Transformer model trained on integer arithmetic tasks can be improved using methods effective for human learners. We begin by decomposing the arithmetic task into well-defined subtasks and conducting loss convergence order analysis together with ablation studies for each subtask. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit learning patterns similar to those of human learners, with a faster learning speed for simpler subtasks compared to more complex ones. In addition, we successfully improved the accuracy of LLMs by applying problem-solving strategies and cognitive empowerment methods shown to enhance the performance of human learners. This suggests that transformer-based LLMs may share cognitive processes with human learners in arithmetic. Lastly, we provide a comprehensive demonstration of our method's effectiveness, including significant accuracy improvement experiments, visualization verification, and explanation-based analysis to illuminate the intricacies of LLMs in arithmetic learning. In general, this work explores the potential similarities between transformer-based LLMs and human learners, supported by explainable AI (XAI) verifications, ultimately fostering trust in LLMs for critical and high-stakes applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.

Transparent educational question answering asks for answers that are not only correct but explainable, and doing so with small models rules out the reasoning power of the largest proprietary systems. The EXACT 2026 competition poses this problem concretely: open-weight language models of at most 8B parameters, self-hosted, with a natural-language explanation for every answer. It pairs two tasks: logical reasoning over university regulations, and multi-step physics problem solving. We describe the system that team \cotu{} developed to address both, a neuro-symbolic Program-of-Thought pipeline in which a 4B backbone writes a program rather than stating an answer directly: for regulation queries it emits a Z3 encoding whose entailment verdict grounds the deduction, and for physics it emits numerical Python, both wrapped in a shared self-correction loop and a unified explained-JSON output. Answer-type routing, distillation-based task fine-tuning, and a latency-aware serving stack -- SGLang with speculative decoding -- keep the system within the 60-second per-query limit. The system achieved a \textbf{perfect score} on the physics task in both automated selection rounds and obtained the \textbf{highest final-round technical score} of any team -- $13.44/15$, combining automated answer evaluation with expert-judged reasoning depth -- with the equally weighted presentation score included, \cotu{} placed 3rd overall. Grounding answers in a symbolic solver yields correct, verifiable deductions at the 4B scale, and the residual difficulty lies in premise selection rather than the deduction itself.

Explaining machine-learning models is increasingly important for decision-making and consumer trust, yet it is widely believed to come at a cost: existing Explainable AI (XAI) methods suffer from a persistent accuracy-explainability trade-off. We argue that this trade-off is not fundamental, but an artifact of treating explanation and prediction as separate objectives; when properly coupled, they become complementary, so that equipping a model to explain itself improves, rather than degrades, its accuracy. We introduce the Rashomon Explanation paradigm, which builds a set of faithful, prediction-guiding explanations rather than a single one, and prove that this set is generally non-empty and that explanation fidelity bounds the performance of the models it guides. To explore this set, we propose RashomonLLM, an Explanation-Prediction-Reflection agentic workflow that generates explanations in natural language by iteratively aligning them with predictions, and we prove it converges and recovers the full set. Across customer-churn classification, clinical survival regression, and industrial click-through prediction on large-scale live-streaming logs, RashomonLLM significantly outperforms state-of-the-art prediction and XAI baselines on both accuracy and explanation quality, with gains driven by explanation fidelity and robust to distribution shifts, temporal splits, and seeds. Our framework thus advances business performance while laying the groundwork for consumer trust.

Over the last few years, there has been an increased interest in making machine learning models more interpretable. Although a great deal of effort goes into developing techniques for interpreting the interactions learned by a given model, fewer studies focus on assessing the quality of such explanations. Even fewer focus on how to adjust the model to produce explanations faithful to prior knowledge, a process known as explanation-guided learning. Furthermore, most approaches in this area focus on classification problems and usually assume prior knowledge about which input features or regions are most important. In this work, we introduce a new approach to steering neural networks based on partial dependence, such that their average response to certain features aligns with specific functional domain knowledge about the problem. We empirically demonstrate on a range of regression problems, including dynamical systems forecasting, that models whose training has been controlled using our method perform better than unconstrained models and are more data-efficient. Moreover, we highlight that interpretations obtained from the former actually align with the user-provided knowledge, whereas those obtained from the latter do not.

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.

As deepfake detection models increasingly produce natural language explanations, their reasoning often remains weakly grounded in visual artifacts, limiting reliability and user trust. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate classification accuracy, overlooking whether explanations reflect the actual manipulations. This gap hinders progress toward deployable, explainable deepfake detection systems. To this end, we introduce XPlainVerse, a large-scale benchmark designed for joint deepfake detection and human-centered explanation. XPlainVerse comprises one million real and manipulated images, pairing authentic images from five established sources with forgeries generated by twelve off-the-shelf image editing and synthesis models. We further propose a multi-stage filtering pipeline, Edit-Check, to verify if manipulations satisfy their intended edits, enabling reliable reasoning supervision at scale. Beyond dataset scale, XPlainVerse provides two complementary explanation styles: technical explanations for expert analysis and simplified explanations optimized for non-technical users. To evaluate explanation quality beyond surface similarity, we propose novel metrics, EntityScore and EvidenceScore, that measure reasoning fidelity by checking whether explanations correctly identify manipulated entities and visual evidence. Human annotations on 2,000 explanation pairs validate our dataset quality against human judgment. We believe XPlainVerse will establish grounded explanation quality as a measurable dimension of deepfake detection and support scalable research on trustworthy, interpretable models.

This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12. The dataset comprises 1,639 explanations from 170 curated ScienceQA questions, covering science, language arts, and social sciences. For each question, the dataset includes an explanation written by a human teacher alongside 11 explanations generated by LLM-simulated teacher profiles associated with distinct pedagogical risks. We propose a comprehensive risk rubric aligned with established educational standards that covers five complementary dimensions: factual precision, depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. A key contribution is the addition of 785 explanations with structured explainability annotations, including risk localization and risk description. The annotations are produced through a semi-automatic process with expert teacher validation. Finally, we present validation experiments comparing state-of-the-art proprietary models with a lightweight local Llama 3.1 8B model in both the pedagogical risk detection and the explainability assessment. These experiments evaluate whether supervised fine-tuning on AIriskEval-edu-db2 enables a locally deployable model to approach or outperform stronger frontier models while preserving privacy in educational auditing and assessment tasks.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) for multivariate time-series classifiers are often difficult to interpret in domains where experts reason in terms of semantic feature groups rather than individual channels. In rehabilitation movement analysis with multi-sensor inertial measurement units (IMUs), clinicians interpret motion through muscle-group and joint-segment abstractions; yet, most existing counterfactual methods operate at the channel level, producing scattered and biomechanically incoherent explanations. We propose a two-stage framework for group-based counterfactual generation in high-dimensional IMU data. We first show that Shapley-Adaptive (SA) group ranking preserves counterfactual validity but fails to enforce group-level sparsity, motivating the need for explicit group selection. We then introduce Learnable Gate (LG) methods, which incorporate trainable per-group relevance gates jointly optimized with perturbation masks. Experiments on the KneE-PAD rehabilitation dataset demonstrate that LG substantially improves modality-group sparsity compared to the channel-level M-CELS baseline while maintaining or improving validity, temporal smoothness, and generation efficiency. Exercise-specific analyses further show that group-structured counterfactuals yield concise, muscle-level corrective guidance aligned with clinical reasoning. Overall, the proposed framework enhances interpretability without sacrificing counterfactual quality, enabling more actionable explanations for rehabilitation movement analysis.

The ''Computational Life'' paper (Agüera y Arcas et al., 2024) argues that paired interactions in a computational soup are an effective way to find self-replicators. In this work, aided by recent developments in self-replicator detection, we explore the alternate hypothesis that self-replicators can be found at least as easily using simple mutation random walks in program space. We also explore the claim that capping the maximum ''depth'' and ''width'' of the ancestry tree stops self-replicators from emerging, showing instead that it merely stops self-replicators from taking over the soup.

Recommender systems are vital in helping users navigate vast amounts of information, offering personalized suggestions and effective explanations for these recommendations. While previous efforts have attempted to provide such explanations, evaluating their effectiveness across various scenarios remains a challenge. Enhancing these explanations is essential for improving user engagement, trust, and decision-making. To facilitate effective explanations within the recommender system, we propose a Bi-level Neural Architecture Search (Bi-NAS) framework to optimize explanations. This approach simultaneously refines cross-attention mechanisms and feature interaction functions by exploring both intra-layer and inter-layer design spaces. Furthermore, we integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) to enhance explanation generation, leveraging zero-shot prompting to produce more effective and personalized justifications. By aligning user feature preferences with item quality scores, our approach ensures that explanations reflect both user intent and item attributes, improving transparency and reasoning depth. Extensive evaluations on four real-world datasets demonstrate that Bi-NAS not only boosts recommendation accuracy but also significantly improves the effectiveness of explanations for recommender systems, providing users with clear and reliable insights into the suggestions they receive.

Explanations for emotion classifiers are usually produced post hoc, with no guarantee that they reflect the computation behind the label. We present an explication interface for event-based emotion analysis. A parser maps the input text to an explication, a short script in the closed vocabulary of Natural Semantic Metalanguage organized into twelve typed slots, and a fixed decision list of rules transcribed from published semantic definitions computes the label from the explication alone. The faithfulness guarantee is therefore causal and definitional, while all empirical risk lives in the learned parser, which the per-line entailment interface makes auditable against the input. On crowd-sourced event descriptions, our fine-tuned parser reaches 0.33 accuracy and 0.48 selective accuracy on a small held-out set, suggesting that the interface trades insignificant accuracy difference to a black-box model for a verifiable, inspectable decision basis for first-person event-based emotion analysis. We also release EmoExpl-1200 with per-line verification metadata and the full rule set.

When does training language models (LMs) to generate explanations of their predictions yield faithful introspection, rather than superficial imitation? We study LMs trained to explain which features of their inputs influenced their behavior, using models' counterfactual behavior on modified inputs as supervision. Surprisingly, we find that LMs trained on fixed counterfactual explanations derived from earlier checkpoints of themselves, or even from behaviorally similar models in different families, frequently produce explanations more faithful to their own current behaviors than to those of their training targets. This "introspective" coupling between LM explanations and behaviors occurs when training explanations remain sufficiently correlated with current behaviors over the course of training, even as behaviors themselves shift. We also show that introspective coupling tracks behavior shifts: when explanation training is provided concurrently with other post-training objectives, explanations track those shifts without requiring updated supervision. This phenomenon appears in multiple tasks, including sycophancy and refusal, and is robust to label noise. Overall, our results show that even fixed datasets of counterfactual explanations can provide scalable and generalizable post-training signal for introspection.

Decision-makers routinely rely on expert judgments accompanied by written explanations, yet explanation quality is difficult to measure at scale. Forecasting tournaments offer a natural testing ground: probabilistic judgments are paired with natural-language rationales and scored against realized outcomes. We introduce Explanation Quality Markers (EQMs), a set of sixty theory-guided reasoning patterns scored by large language models (LLMs). In a pre-registered analysis of over 55,000 forecast-rationale pairs from a multiyear forecasting tournament, EQMs predict accuracy at both the forecast and forecaster levels, consistently outperforming pre-LLM text-analysis methods. More than 90% of statistically significant pattern-level EQM-accuracy correlations match our directional hypotheses. The signal is asymmetric: EQMs identify likely underperformers more reliably than they distinguish the very best forecasters. Benchmarked against traditional indicators of forecasting skill, EQMs are the strongest predictor at the forecast level and competitive at the forecaster level, though weaker than prior accuracy. Human ratings of rationale quality are less consistently correlated with accuracy and place disproportionate weight on rationale length. Results transfer to an independent forecasting study. EQMs provide a scalable, interpretable method for extracting judgment-relevant information from written explanations.

Prototype-based medical image classifiers present three clinical limitations: they treat findings as independent, silently amplify unsafe physician feedback, and require full retraining whenever a new finding is needed. We present GRAPE (Graph-Augmented Prototype Explanations), a unified architecture that addresses all three challenges. First, a Graph Attention Task Head models anatomical concept co-occurrence, boosting macro-F1 by +13.8,pp over the prototype baseline on TBX11K. Second, a Concept-Mismatch Safety Check - the first such mechanism in prototype-based medical classifiers - warns when the model's dominant finding inside a doctor-drawn region conflicts with the claimed label, catching 85% of erroneous annotations versus 51% for MC-Dropout with no extra inference cost. Third, Open-Vocabulary Prototype Anchoring aligns visual prototypes to clinical text, allowing a new finding to be added from a single labeled image without modifying any other component. On NIH ChestX-ray14, one Effusion example recovers full-supervision localization accuracy; on TBX11K, prototype maps achieve 2.6x better lesion localization than end-to-end baselines. All three capabilities add only +1~ms latency at interactive batch size. The project page is https://github.com/KurbanIntelligenceLab/GRAPE.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures have recently been extended with role-based mechanisms for interpretability. This is typically done by assigning semantic roles to individual expert components, for example roles like synergy, redundancy, and uniqueness in multimodal settings. However, whether such structural role decomposition preserves explanation faithfulness of the overall architecture remains largely underexplored. We hypothesize that inter-expert representation overlap weakens effective role separation and degrades attribution-based faithfulness, even when semantic roles are explicitly defined. To address this limitation, we introduce representation-level decorrelation regularization to explicitly reduce inter-expert similarity in latent space. Using representation decorrelation objectives, we encourage clearer specialization among experts by minimizing representation overlap. Our experiments show that across multiple multimodal benchmarks, this separation consistently improves explanation faithfulness, as measured by comprehensiveness, sufficiency, and their Area Over the Perturbation Curve (AOPC) summaries, while preserving task performance. We further show that these improvements are not limited to role-based architectures such as Interpretable Multimodal Interaction-aware MoE (I2MoE). Similar trends are observed in a standard sparse MoE baseline, suggesting that representation-level separation may provide a more general mechanism for enhancing explanation faithfulness in MoE systems. Overall, our findings suggest that structural role decomposition alone may be insufficient to guarantee faithful explanations and that representation-level separation helps improve explanation faithfulness. To support reproducibility, the source code and supplementary material are publicly available at https://github.com/dut0817/FL-I2MoE_Decor.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in social robots to support natural group interactions, yet their role in complex multi-party settings remains underexplored. In particular, it is unclear how LLM-driven robots decide when and why to intervene in group conversations. This paper investigates the intervention explanations generated by an LLM-based orchestrator in a multi-party interaction involving three human participants and two robots. We conducted a between-subjects study with 24 groups (66 university students), comparing a homogeneous condition (two robots with the same role, i.e., a mover) and a heterogeneous condition (two robots with different roles, i.e., a mover and an opposer). At each conversational turn, the LLM orchestrator decided whether to intervene and generated a textual explanation of its decision. We performed a thematic analysis of 610 intervention explanations, identifying five recurring themes. Results show that explanations are facilitation-oriented, emphasizing agreement, participation, and interaction flow. While patterns remain stable across conditions, role differentiation emerges: the mover supports coordination, whereas the opposer drives goal-oriented interventions. These findings contribute to explainable AI by characterizing how LLM-driven systems justify intervention decisions in real-time, multi-party human-robot interaction.

Post-hoc explanation methods are routinely used to interpret scientific machine learning models, with the deliverable understood to be insight into the phenomenon the model has been trained on. The transition may be taken to be secured once the model is reliable enough and the explanation faithful enough. We argue it is not. Reliability checks that the model's predictions match the phenomenon's outcomes, and faithfulness checks that the explanation matches the model, but neither checks whether the model works as the phenomenon works, which is what a claim about structure requires. The chain can support candidate hypotheses under external corroboration, but it cannot, on its own, support claims about how the phenomenon is in fact structured.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training. We show that this aggregation is not neutral: 42.6% of all annotator disagreement in HateXplain concentrates specifically at the hate/offensive boundary, a pattern consistent with annotators applying different thresholds for where hate begins (chi-squared = 135.199, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Both a hard-label BERT model (Model A) and a soft-label model (Model B) drop 22 percentage points in accuracy from agreed posts (~80%) to disagreement posts (~58%), confirmed at p < 0.0001. A per-annotator multi-head model (Model C) widens this gap further to 28 points while collapsing offensive disagreement accuracy to 0.245. Critically, Model A expresses significantly higher confidence on boundary case errors than Model C (0.710 vs. 0.495, p < 0.0001), meaning standard evaluation metrics will not detect the failure. Three downstream interventions of increasing sophistication all fail to recover boundary accuracy. We argue the problem is structural. Majority vote presents a contested judgment as ground truth, and models inherit that false certainty. The intervention must be upstream in annotation design.

Accurately explaining hidden patterns in multi-aspect data has typically been done by leveraging labels and/or accompanying auxiliary metadata. However, labels and auxiliary data may be inaccurate (e.g. nonstandard, inconsistent), insufficient (e.g. static tabular metadata for time-dependent recordings), or unavailable. % We propose \fullmethod (\method), which leverages the knowledge of large language models (LLMs) to explain the hidden patterns in human narratives. \method uses task-agnostic and task-specific prompts to explain extracted co-clustered latent patterns from tensor decomposition. To evaluate these explanations, we test the LLMs on forward and backward inference tasks. % Our demo system is available at https://github.com/dawonahn/ECML_PKDD_AnTenA.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where free-text explanations such as chain-of-thought and post-hoc rationales are used to justify model outputs. Yet it remains unclear whether these explanations are sufficient, i.e., if they contain enough information to explain the model's output-generating process. We generalize classical sufficiency from feature attributions to arbitrary explanations and prove that explanation sufficiency can change depending on the input distribution, which must be explicitly defined for LLM explanations. We propose using the LLM itself to generate alternative inputs conditioned on an explanation, capturing its beliefs about possible inputs. We formalize self-consistent sufficiency as a goal for free-text explanations and introduce an information-theoretic metric, SCSuff, that enables evaluation of free-text explanations without relying on predefined biases or shortcuts. Our experiments show that SCSuff agrees with targeted perturbation tests where applicable and demonstrate that explanation sufficiency can vary with the input distribution. We find LLM explanations are generally insufficient and weakly correlated with model size, accuracy, or output entropy. Analysis of final-token hidden states shows that top and bottom SCSuff scores can be predicted from internal representations, suggesting that SCSuff can guide detection and improvement of sufficient LLM explanations. The code for this paper is available at https://github.com/rajesh-lab/self-consistent-sufficiency .

Understanding model predictions is essential for physical applications, where outputs often inform safety-critical decisions, such as structural load assessment, weather warnings, and clinical diagnosis. Shapley values satisfy many desirable properties as an attribution method, but their computational cost during inference hinders their practical use. Current amortized explainers, such as FastSHAP, are limited to homogeneous inputs, which is problematic for physical applications where data often comes from irregular grids and geometries. We introduce OperatorSHAP, a grid-agnostic attribution method and training procedure that allows us to train FastSHAP-like explainers for neural operators. We establish a theoretical framework for attributions in function space, connecting to Aumann-Shapley values. We further show that OperatorSHAP's explanations are consistent with state-of-the-art discrete Shapley values across resolutions and transfer across grid sizes without retraining.

While many explainable AI (XAI) methods have been proposed, most are not designed for time-series forecasting models and often rely on the implicit assumption that timestamp features are independent. This assumption ignores the fundamental property of temporal dependence and can lead to explanations that violate the sequential and causal structure of the data. We introduce \textsc{KARMA}, a method for explaining time-series predictors by constructing a Markov surrogate model that captures the temporal dependencies learned by the predictor. Our approach revolves around three main aspects: identifying the minimal history length $K$ that is predictively sufficient for the model, estimating the best-fitting $K$-order Markov transition kernel from the discretized history space, and a five-level global explanation hierarchy that can be derived from the Markov transition kernel, which we illustrate using real-world weather data (Beijing PM 2.5). We also certify using complex synthetic data with known true causal edges that KARMA (i) recovers the data causal structure as learned by the model via a controlled experiment and (ii) identifies temporal dependencies better than established attribution methods such as TimeSHAP.

The promotion of betting applications on social media platforms has increased significantly in recent years. Many of these advertisements use persuasive techniques that may mislead users, encourage risky behavior, and potentially influence users' mental well-being. However, research on the automated detection of manipulative and deceptive betting advertisements remains limited due to the lack of publicly available annotated datasets. In this work, we introduce a new dataset of betting-related advertisements collected from two widely used social media platforms, Instagram and Reddit. The advertisements were manually annotated for manipulative and deceptive advertising practices. In addition to classification labels, the dataset includes human-provided explanations that describe the reasoning behind each annotation, enabling research into explainable approaches to detecting manipulative advertising. Furthermore, we analyze the strategies commonly used in betting advertisements and examine how these persuasive tactics may impact users' mental health. The proposed framework can also enable practical applications such as browser plugins that warn users about manipulative betting advertisements and automated web crawlers that help regulatory authorities monitor and detect such promotions online.

Event-based Temporal Graph Neural Networks (ETGNNs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of applications, including social network analysis, epidemic tracing, recommender systems, and political event forecasting. However, their increasing complexity poses significant challenges for explainability. Existing explanation methods focus only on a subset of the information flow within ETGNNs, typically tracing contributions from the event-related embeddings to the output. Consequently, they overlook the important pathways through event-induced variables, which mediate interactions between nodes and thereby play a central role in capturing long-range temporal dependencies. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel attribution method that analyzes the entire information flow through all event-associated variables. Our method is built upon the recent Normalized Relevance Measure (NRM) framework, which enables explicit quantification of information flow originating from event embeddings as well as information flow passing through event-induced variables. It also ensures comparability of latent variables across layers, and supports higher-order analysis of interactions between events. To handle the architectural complexity of ETGNNs, we extend the NRM framework with a modular decomposition procedure that facilitates the systematic construction of relevance structure for complex neural architectures. We evaluate our approach on two synthetic datasets for epidemic tracing and social dynamics, as well as a real-world dataset of political event networks. Our qualitative and quantitative experiments show that our method consistently outperforms existing explanation approaches while producing more human-interpretable explanations.

AI-based scientific automation is increasingly possible by using agents to generate hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data. Data collection is a major bottleneck in this pipeline, however. Psychology, and computational cognitive science in particular, is well-positioned to benefit from AI experimentation because theories are often represented as code and crowdsourcing platforms enable programmatic human data collection at scale. Here, we apply automated discovery techniques to the project of generating theories in computational cognitive science, with an agent-based system collecting human data independently through crowdsourced survey experiments. As a testbed, we use a classic case study from cognitive psychology: judging which sequences of coin flips seem subjectively more random. Our system, auto-psych, uses nested agent-based discovery loops to generate explanatory theories of human behavior. The inner loop conjectures, fits, and critiques probabilistic cognitive models; the outer loop designs experiments to test these models, launches them online, and analyzes the data. This system can quickly and reliably recover ground-truth theories from synthetic data via systematic experimentation, but the nested structure is critical to model performance. Further, in three independent sequences of human experiments, the system finds theories that fit the data better than theories generated from the scientific literature. This work thus demonstrates the feasibility of automated data collection and theory discovery in computational cognitive science.

The wide use of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) in numerous domains and real-world classification applications is justified by their high precision and automation speed, helping users concentrate on higher-expertise tasks. To better understand the models and avoid bias during deployment, eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques can be used after training. But as the list of XAI solutions expand, comparisons between them diverge, and consensus over their evaluation cannot be reached. This paper proposes a variation of Fidelity-based XAI metrics, with a focus on real-conditions applications, where the number of classes is often low. The approach generates in-distribution, uncertainty-provoking perturbations, to ensure proper measurement of the XAI methods faithfulness. As demonstration of the evaluation framework usefulness, it is compared with human-centric object localization and segmentation metrics. Once applied to both medical and natural imaging applications, it highlights the intricate correlation between domain, data curation, and XAI solution choices in order to validate training of a new CNN model.

Formal verification produces machine-checkable certificates that attest to the satisfaction or violation of temporal properties, yet these certificates remain opaque to non-specialist stakeholders. We propose a cycle-consistent neural architecture that generates faithful natural language explanations of verification certificates. A forward network NN1 maps certificates to explanations, and an inverse network NN2 reconstructs certificates from explanations; a symbolic verifier closes the loop, providing a differentiable faithfulness proxy. A pointer-generator mechanism ensures lexical grounding by copying state names directly from the certificate. We evaluate on 420 test certificates spanning six verification methods (bounded proof, k-induction, inductive invariant, lasso, reachability, witness pair) in both YES and NO verdict variants, drawn from a financial compliance domain with 207 named states. Our trained architecture, combined with a hybrid inference-time routing strategy, achieves 90.0% cycle-verified soundness, surpassing a multi- LLM few-shot baseline (76.1% for the best of 16 LLM combinations across four frontier models) by 13.9 percentage points. The neural model wins on 10 of 12 verdict/kind categories, with three categories reaching 100% soundness. The architecture offers 860x faster inference (185 ms vs. 160 s per certificate for the full multi-LLM baseline), offline operation, deterministic outputs, and zero per-inference cost. These results demonstrate that trained specialization outperforms general-purpose LLM prompting for structured certificate explanation, while eliminating the deployment constraints of cloud-based inference.

Mechanistic interpretability has made substantial progress in automatically localizing circuits, but explaining what localized components do remains labor-intensive and difficult to standardize. In this work, we study whether language model (LM) agents can assist with this explanation problem once a circuit has already been identified. We introduce AgenticInterpBench, a benchmark for circuit explanation built from 84 semi-synthetic transformer circuits with 163 component-level annotations. We propose HyVE (Hypothesize, Validate, Explain), an agentic explainer that analyzes each component through an iterative loop of observation, hypothesis generation, and causal validation, eventually producing a component-level explanation and a circuit-level task description. Across four LM backbones, HyVE recovers useful component- and task-level explanations, but no backbone is uniformly best. Our analysis shows that strong backbones usually form observation-grounded hypotheses, while failures more often arise later in the validation loop, through incomplete validation plans, code execution errors, or unresolved hypotheses. A case study on an arithmetic circuit in Llama-3-8B shows that the same formulation can extend beyond semi-synthetic benchmarks to naturally trained models. Overall, LM agents are promising circuit explainers, but reliable validation remains the key obstacle.

Advances in generative AI have made image falsification highly realistic, demanding trustworthy authentication systems. Existing forensic detectors can target certain forgery types but lack interpretability, while vision-language models (VLMs) provide explanations but cannot exploit forensic traces for reliable detection. We propose Forensic Knowledge Graphs (FKGs), a unified framework that integrates forensic evidence extraction, structured reasoning, and human-interpretable explanation. Our FKG structure encodes forensic traces along with their causal dependencies and links to scene content. To generate accurate FKGs, we introduce a novel forensic authentication network and an Iterative Context Refinement strategy that guides VLMs to produce faithful, grounded explanations. We also present FKG-50K, a dataset of 50,000 realistic forgeries with ground-truth FKGs. Experiments demonstrate that FKG outperforms both forensic detectors and VLMs in detection, forgery identification and localization, and forensic justification.

Bias in natural language remains a persistent challenge in both human-written and AI-generated content, affecting domains such as journalism, education, and AI research. Most existing detection methods identify only the presence of bias, with limited support for granular detection, interpretable explanations, neutral rewriting, and openly available trained models. We present UnBias-Plus, an open-source toolkit unifying (1) segment-level multi-class bias classification, (2) biased span localization, (3) neutral text rewriting, and (4) reasoning for each decision. Available via Python, CLI, REST API, and web interfaces, UnBias-Plus supports accessible bias analysis. The toolkit, source code, models, datasets, and documentation are publicly available.

In this study, we propose a novel pipeline for generic, model-agnostic, local-level counterfactual explainability in graph neural networks (GNNs). Although counterfactual explainers capable of both adding and removing edges have emerged in recent years, the need for generic and efficient solutions remains unmet, particularly concerning qualitative explanation generation. Our approach couples progress in factual explainability with missing edge prediction models rooted in link prediction research, in order to enhance the quality, robustness and intuitiveness of explanations. A multi-faceted experimental analysis conducted on real-world and synthetic graph classification benchmarks, both binary and multi-label, demonstrates the advancements in comparison to state-of-the-art baselines across diverse metrics.

Dysarthria severity assessment is essential for therapy planning and longitudinal monitoring, yet manual perceptual rating is time-consuming and variable across clinicians. Although deep learning models achieve strong performance, their black-box nature limits clinical adoption. Existing speech explainability methods typically provide acoustic feature importance scores that are difficult for end-users to interpret. We propose an influence-based, instance-level explainability framework that explains each decision through supportive and competing training samples. Using gradient-based influence approximations, we compute per-utterance influence scores to identify supportive and competing training samples for each prediction. Controlled deletion experiments from 5 to 20 percent validate the explanations, showing that removing highly influential samples systematically shifts predictions. This approach provides auditable explanations by linking decisions to perceptible reference cases.

While global explanations are crucial for understanding vision models across datasets, classes, and decision contexts, their complex and monolithic nature often hinders practical exploration. Because users typically seek targeted answers to specific questions rather than static artifacts, we present an LLM-based interactive interface that provides natural language access to global explanations for black-box image classifiers. The system's core LLM acts as a mediator, translating natural language questions into structured SQL queries over local explanation data. This enables flexible aggregation without exposing users to low-level representations. For each query, the interface outputs statistics-augmented natural language responses, supporting local explanations, and intent-aligned visualizations. We evaluate the system on intent interpretation, query mapping accuracy, generalization to novel queries and datasets, and robustness to linguistic errors. Our results demonstrate that LLM-mediated querying substantially improves the accessibility and usability of global explanations for human-centered XAI.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence aims to make black-box models more trustworthy by presenting, in a human-understandable manner, the elements that lead to the model's output. This involves both (i) identifying components and connections with genuine causal influence on outputs and (ii) translating such structures into an interpretable representation. For the former, we introduce CIExplainer, a novel perturbation-based method grounded in causal inference for explaining Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). CIExplainer identifies the subgraph with the highest causal effects on GNN predictions using the Potential Outcome Framework. We evaluate and compare CIExplainer on various GNN architectures (GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, GIN) and datasets. To bridge subgraph explanations with human interpretability, we further propose G2TeXplainer, a method that transforms causal subgraphs into natural language explanations that capture both feature-level and relational information.

The increasing use of machine learning algorithms in social applications has raised concerns about fairness and transparency, leading to the development of counterfactual explanations. These explanations supports individuals to understand and potentially alter unfavorable decisions in areas such as loan applications, job selections, and more, by providing actionable changes to input features that would lead to a desired outcome. Existing methods often struggle to balance feasibility, plausibility, and computational efficiency. To address this, we introduce P$^2$CE, an algorithm for generating plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations, offering users a diverse set of optimal trade-offs between different notions of feasibility. P$^2$CE employs an auxiliary isolation forest outlier detector to ensure that explanations are in accordance with the data distribution and leverages SHAP values to obtain optimal results with short computing times, regardless of the underlying model. Our algorithm was empirically evaluated on three datasets, demonstrating superior performance in terms of both solution quality and computational efficiency compared to related techniques.

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly used to extract interpretable features from language models (LMs), yet a central question remains: when can an SAE-based explanation be treated as a faithful view of an underlying frozen LM We study this through a post-hoc generalization framework that certifies the LM via a sparse proxy, obtained by replacing a native hidden activation with its pretrained SAE reconstruction. Our framework derives an upper bound on the base model's expected risk using four measurable quantities: proxy risk, SAE reconstruction gap, concept-pool mismatch, and sparse complexity. We interpret this certificate as an operational criterion for explanatory faithfulness. In particular, a non-vacuous bound indicates that the extracted sparse features retain meaningful predictive information, while small reconstruction and mismatch errors indicate that the proxy remains behaviorally close to the original model. Empirically, we show that the bound becomes non-vacuous on GPT-2 Small, Gemma-2B, and Llama-3-8B at practical sample sizes. A detailed layerwise analysis of Llama-3-8B reveals a strong depth dependence, with later layers becoming much easier to certify, associated with both stronger local fidelity and weaker downstream error amplification. Finally, through feature-shuffling ablations, we show that the decomposition distinguishes genuine semantic alignment from mere statistical sparsity, providing a useful diagnostic for when SAE-based explanations become less reliable.

Language models (LMs) that faithfully describe their own behavior can more easily be audited, understood, and trusted by users. This paper describes Self-Consistency Training with Reinforcement Learning (Self-CTRL), a method that optimizes for consistency between a LM's self-explanations and behavior on related inputs by updating explanations to better predict behavior or updating behavior to better match explanations. We apply our method in two domains. First, we study a formal probabilistic reasoning task in which LMs must learn to imitate a family of biased samplers and evaluated on their ability to report the associated biases. We find that consistency training improves the correlation between self-reported and behaviorally-measured latent biases from $R^2=0.24$ to $R^2=0.64$ on a set of held-out distributions, matching the generalization of direct ground-truth supervision. Second, we study a constitutional AI domain in which LMs must describe when they will refuse or comply with user requests. Here, Self-CTRL produces rules that faithfully describe the model's behavior on held-out requests, improving the refusal predictions of a third-party auditor model from $36\%$ to $92\%$. In the other direction, behavior updates improve alignment, reducing HarmBench failure rate from $15.0\%$ to $0.5\%$ without substantially increasing refusal on harmless prompts. By aligning explanations and behavior, our work provides a general recipe for training AI models to be safer, more transparent, and more controllable.

Generating adversarial driving scenarios is critical for evaluating and improving autonomous vehicle decision-making systems in simulation. Recent approaches rely primarily on the prior knowledge of Large Language Models and Vision-Language Models to generate driving scenarios procedurally. We argue that adversarial scenes should be generated based on the failure diagnosis (e.g., indecisiveness, multi-frame inconsistency) of the driving policy to specifically address the policy's weaknesses instead of relying on prior assumptions. In this paper, we propose SPHINX, a closed-loop framework for adversarial scenario synthesis guided by a simple principle: first explain, then explore. Beyond blindly exploring the scenario space, SPHINX leverages explainable artificial intelligence methods to analyze the policy, identifying key visual concepts and their influence on policy outputs, and the uncertainty of the decisions. Given the interpretable evidence extracted from the policy's own decision process, we use a vision language model to rationalize and criticize failure modes of the current policy. These critics are then used to generate targeted adversarial scenarios for policy retraining and improvement. We demonstrate that SPHINX can highlight an interpretable account of policy failures while other adversarial scene generation cannot. Across the evaluated benchmarks and test suites, SPHINX can be applied to diverse state-of-the-art autonomous vehicle architectures and yields consistent robustness improvements over existing scenario-generation methods.

Untranslatability, cases where meaning cannot be directly preserved across languages, is well-studied in linguistics but underexplored in NLP. As machine translation (MT) systems improve on standard benchmarks, their limitations increasingly concentrate in such cases, where translation cannot be reduced to one-to-one equivalence. We introduce a structured ontology of untranslatability along with a taxonomy of compensation strategies, which are specific techniques to convey meaning under these untranslatable circumstances. We operationalize this framework into a multilingual dataset of untranslatable sentences paired with strategy-based translations, enabling controlled analysis of translation behavior. Initial human preference studies suggest that translation quality depends on the strategy used, with consistent preferences for outputs that include explanatory context, known as the Annotation compensation strategy. Our framework and dataset provide a foundation for studying and modeling strategy-informed machine translation.

Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.

Speech deepfake detection (SDD) systems require trustworthy explanations for reliable decision-making. Existing explanation ways mainly fall into two categories. Traditional explainable AI (XAI), such as gradient-based attribution, produces low-level attribution signals tightly coupled with model decisions, and harder to be understood by human than natural language explanations. Meanwhile, large language model (LLM)-based explanation generation often produces generic and ungrounded descriptions due to the lack of heuristic evidence and task-specific supervision, stemming from limited grounded explanation datasets for SDD. We therefore propose a training-free explanation framework that integrates XAI evidence with multimodal LLMs to generate grounded and specific explanations. Using the PartialSpoof dataset, we construct a grounded explanation dataset and show that methods with XAI increase inside accuracy by over 45%, verified through human evaluation and faithfulness checks.

How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs. Explainability is crucial for AI adoption in many contexts, but in order to produce good explanations of AI systems, we must first have an understanding of what good explanations are. In this paper we propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations, however we argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation. We explore the ramifications of this definition for AI explainability and, in particular, why LLM outputs are difficult to produce good explanations for.

This paper investigates the fragility of post-hoc explanation methods in audio deepfake detection. While previous work on explanation manipulation focused on images using standard $L_p$ metrics, we introduce a psychoacoustic framework that optimizes inaudible perturbations to decouple model attributions from final classifications. We evaluate this vulnerability across state-of-the-art architectures under strict prediction-preserving constraints. By evaluating the manipulation cost through domain-specific perceptual audio quality metrics alongside explanation alignment criteria, our framework demonstrates that an adversary can systematically distort automated explanation heatmaps while preserving the predicted deepfake label. Full code available at: https://github.com/cncPomper/Audio-XAI