We propose a novel eXplainable AI algorithm to compute faithful, easy-to-understand, and complete global decision rules from local explanations for tabular data by combining XAI methods with closed frequent itemset mining. Our method can be used with any local explainer that indicates which dimensions are important for a given sample for a given black-box decision. This property allows our algorithm to choose among different local explainers, addressing the disagreement problem, \ie the observation that no single explanation method consistently outperforms others across models and datasets. Unlike usual experimental methodology, our evaluation also accounts for the Rashomon effect in model explainability. To this end, we demonstrate the robustness of our approach in finding suitable rules for nearly all of the 700 black-box models we considered across 14 benchmark datasets. The results also show that our method exhibits improved runtime, high precision and F1-score while generating compact and complete rules.

As neural networks become dominant in essential systems, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in fostering trust and detecting potential misbehavior of opaque models. LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) is among the most prominent model-agnostic approaches, generating explanations by approximating the behavior of black-box models around specific instances. Despite its popularity, LIME faces challenges related to fidelity, stability, and applicability to domain-specific problems. Numerous adaptations and enhancements have been proposed to address these issues, but the growing number of developments can be overwhelming, complicating efforts to navigate LIME-related research. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey to comprehensively explore and collect LIME's foundational concepts and known limitations. We categorize and compare its various enhancements, offering a structured taxonomy based on intermediate steps and key issues. Our analysis provides a holistic overview of advancements in LIME, guiding future research and helping practitioners identify suitable approaches. Additionally, we provide a continuously updated interactive website (https://patrick-knab.github.io/which-lime-to-trust/), offering a concise and accessible overview of the survey.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising approach to enhancing Explainable AI (XAI) by transforming complex machine learning outputs into easy-to-understand narratives, making model predictions more accessible to users, and helping bridge the gap between sophisticated model behavior and human interpretability. AI models, such as state-of-the-art neural networks and deep learning models, are often seen as "black boxes" due to a lack of transparency. As users cannot fully understand how the models reach conclusions, users have difficulty trusting decisions from AI models, which leads to less effective decision-making processes, reduced accountabilities, and unclear potential biases. A challenge arises in developing explainable AI (XAI) models to gain users' trust and provide insights into how models generate their outputs. With the development of Large Language Models, we want to explore the possibilities of using human language-based models, LLMs, for model explainabilities. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of existing approaches regarding LLMs for XAI, and evaluation techniques for LLM-generated explanation, discusses the corresponding challenges and limitations, and examines real-world applications. Finally, we discuss future directions by emphasizing the need for more interpretable, automated, user-centric, and multidisciplinary approaches for XAI via LLMs.

Counterfactual explanations provide an intuitive way to understand model decisions by identifying minimal changes required to alter an outcome. However, applying counterfactual methods to time series models remains challenging due to temporal dependencies, high dimensionality, and the lack of an intuitive human-interpretable representation. We introduce MASCOTS, a method that leverages the Bag-of-Receptive-Fields representation alongside symbolic transformations inspired by Symbolic Aggregate Approximation. By operating in a symbolic feature space, it enhances interpretability while preserving fidelity to the original data and model. Unlike existing approaches that either depend on model structure or autoencoder-based sampling, MASCOTS directly generates meaningful and diverse counterfactual observations in a model-agnostic manner, operating on both univariate and multivariate data. We evaluate MASCOTS on univariate and multivariate benchmark datasets, demonstrating comparable validity, proximity, and plausibility to state-of-the-art methods, while significantly improving interpretability and sparsity. Its symbolic nature allows for explanations that can be expressed visually, in natural language, or through semantic representations, making counterfactual reasoning more accessible and actionable.

Counterfactual explanations have been successfully applied to create human interpretable explanations for various black-box models. They are handy for tasks in the image domain, where the quality of the explanations benefits from recent advances in generative models. Although counterfactual explanations have been widely applied to classification models, their application to regression tasks remains underexplored. We present two methods to create counterfactual explanations for image regression tasks using diffusion-based generative models to address challenges in sparsity and quality: 1) one based on a Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model that operates directly in pixel-space and 2) another based on a Diffusion Autoencoder operating in latent space. Both produce realistic, semantic, and smooth counterfactuals on CelebA-HQ and a synthetic data set, providing easily interpretable insights into the decision-making process of the regression model and reveal spurious correlations. We find that for regression counterfactuals, changes in features depend on the region of the predicted value. Large semantic changes are needed for significant changes in predicted values, making it harder to find sparse counterfactuals than with classifiers. Moreover, pixel space counterfactuals are more sparse while latent space counterfactuals are of higher quality and allow bigger semantic changes.

Given the broad adoption of artificial intelligence, it is essential to provide evidence that AI models are reliable, trustable, and fair. To this end, the emerging field of eXplainable AI develops techniques to probe such requirements, counterbalancing the hype pushing the pervasiveness of this technology. Among the many facets of this issue, this paper focuses on baseline attribution methods, aiming at deriving a feature attribution map at the network input relying on a "neutral" stimulus usually called "baseline". The choice of the baseline is crucial as it determines the explanation of the network behavior. In this framework, this paper has the twofold goal of shedding light on the implications of the choice of the baseline and providing a simple yet effective method for identifying the best baseline for the task. To achieve this, we propose a decision boundary sampling method, since the baseline, by definition, lies on the decision boundary, which naturally becomes the search domain. Experiments are performed on synthetic examples and validated relying on state-of-the-art methods. Despite being limited to the experimental scope, this contribution is relevant as it offers clear guidelines and a simple proxy for baseline selection, reducing ambiguity and enhancing deep models' reliability and trust.

Concept-based eXplainable AI (C-XAI) aims to overcome the limitations of traditional saliency maps by converting pixels into human-understandable concepts that are consistent across an entire dataset. A crucial aspect of C-XAI is completeness, which measures how well a set of concepts explains a model's decisions. Among C-XAI methods, Multi-Dimensional Concept Discovery (MCD) effectively improves completeness by breaking down the CNN latent space into distinct and interpretable concept subspaces. However, MCD's explanations can be difficult for humans to understand, raising concerns about their practical utility. To address this, we propose Human-Understandable Multi-dimensional Concept Discovery (HU-MCD). HU-MCD uses the Segment Anything Model for concept identification and implements a CNN-specific input masking technique to reduce noise introduced by traditional masking methods. These changes to MCD, paired with the completeness relation, enable HU-MCD to enhance concept understandability while maintaining explanation faithfulness. Our experiments, including human subject studies, show that HU-MCD provides more precise and reliable explanations than existing C-XAI methods. The code is available at https://github.com/grobruegge/hu-mcd.

Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a prominent method in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), providing intuitive and actionable insights into Machine Learning model decisions. In contrast to other traditional feature attribution methods that assess the importance of input variables, counterfactual explanations focus on identifying the minimal changes required to alter a model's prediction, offering a ``what-if'' analysis that is close to human reasoning. In the context of XAI, counterfactuals enhance transparency, trustworthiness and fairness, offering explanations that are not just interpretable but directly applicable in the decision-making processes. In this paper, we present a novel framework that integrates perturbation theory and statistical mechanics to generate minimal counterfactual explanations in explainable AI. We employ a local Taylor expansion of a Machine Learning model's predictive function and reformulate the counterfactual search as an energy minimization problem over a complex landscape. In sequence, we model the probability of candidate perturbations leveraging the Boltzmann distribution and use simulated annealing for iterative refinement. Our approach systematically identifies the smallest modifications required to change a model's prediction while maintaining plausibility. Experimental results on benchmark datasets for cybersecurity in Internet of Things environments, demonstrate that our method provides actionable, interpretable counterfactuals and offers deeper insights into model sensitivity and decision boundaries in high-dimensional spaces.

In recent years, Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) have significantly changed the landscape of software engineering (SE) on downstream tasks, such as code generation, by making software development more efficient. Therefore, a growing interest has emerged in further evaluating these Language Models to homogenize the quality assessment of generated code. As the current evaluation process can significantly overreact on accuracy-based metrics, practitioners often seek methods to interpret LLM4Code outputs beyond canonical benchmarks. While the majority of research reports on code generation effectiveness in terms of expected ground truth, scant attention has been paid to LLMs' explanations. In essence, the decision-making process to generate code is hard to interpret. To bridge this evaluation gap, we introduce code rationales (Code$Q$), a technique with rigorous mathematical underpinning, to identify subsets of tokens that can explain individual code predictions. We conducted a thorough Exploratory Analysis to demonstrate the method's applicability and a User Study to understand the usability of code-based explanations. Our evaluation demonstrates that Code$Q$ is a powerful interpretability method to explain how (less) meaningful input concepts (i.e., natural language particle `at') highly impact output generation. Moreover, participants of this study highlighted Code$Q$'s ability to show a causal relationship between the input and output of the model with readable and informative explanations on code completion and test generation tasks. Additionally, Code$Q$ also helps to uncover model rationale, facilitating comparison with a human rationale to promote a fair level of trust and distrust in the model.

As narrative extraction systems grow in complexity, establishing user trust through interpretable and explainable outputs becomes increasingly critical. This paper presents an evaluation of an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) system for narrative map extraction that provides meaningful explanations across multiple levels of abstraction. Our system integrates explanations based on topical clusters for low-level document relationships, connection explanations for event relationships, and high-level structure explanations for overall narrative patterns. In particular, we evaluate the XAI system through a user study involving 10 participants that examined narratives from the 2021 Cuban protests. The analysis of results demonstrates that participants using the explanations made the users trust in the system's decisions, with connection explanations and important event detection proving particularly effective at building user confidence. Survey responses indicate that the multi-level explanation approach helped users develop appropriate trust in the system's narrative extraction capabilities.