Feature attribution analysis is critical for interpreting machine learning models and supporting reliable data-driven decisions. However, feature attribution measures often exhibit stochastic variation: different train--test splits, random seeds, or model-fitting procedures can produce substantially different attribution values and feature rankings. This paper proposes a framework for incorporating stochastic nature of feature attribution and a robust attribution metric, RoSHAP, for stable feature ranking based on the SHAP metric. The proposed framework models the distribution of feature attribution scores and estimates it through bootstrap resampling and kernel density estimation. We show that, under mild regularity conditions, the aggregated feature attribution score is asymptotically Gaussian, which greatly reduces the computational cost of distribution estimation. The RoSHAP summarizes the distribution of SHAP into a robust feature-ranking criterion that simultaneously rewards features that are active, strong, and stable. Through simulations and real-data experiments, the proposed framework and RoSHAP outperform standard single-run attribution measures in identifying signal features. In addition, models built using RoSHAP-selected features achieve predictive performance comparable to full-feature models while using substantially fewer predictors. The proposed RoSHAP approach improves the stability and interpretability of machine learning models, enabling reliable and consistent insights for analysis.

Data attribution methods aim to quantify the influence of individual training samples on the prediction of artificial intelligence (AI) models.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities, demys-tifying their internal mechanisms becomes increasingly vital.

How do language models use information provided as context when generating a response?

Our work makes one of the first attempts at highlighting the potential of post hoc explanations as valuable tools for enhancing the effectiveness of LLMs.

Vision-language pretrained models have seen remarkable success, but their application to safety-critical settings is limited by their lack of interpretability.

Pre-training large language models (PrLMs) on massive unlabeled corpora and fine-tuning them on downstream tasks has become a new paradigm [1-3]. Their success can be partly attributed to the self-attention mechanism [4], yet these self-attention networks are often redundant [5, 6] and tend to cause overfitting when fine-tuned on downstream tasks due to the mismatch between their overparameterization and the limited annotated data [7-13]. To address this issue, various regularization techniques such as data augmentation [14, 15], adversarial training [16, 17]), and dropout-based methods [11,13,18]have been developed.

Interpretability can be implemented as a means to understand decisions taken by (black box) models, such as machine translation (MT) or large language models (LLMs). Yet, research in this area has been limited in relation to a manifested problem in these models: gender bias. With this research, we aim to move away from simply measuring bias to exploring its origins. Working with gender-ambiguous natural source data, this study examines which context, in the form of input tokens in the source sentence, influences (or triggers) the translation model choice of a certain gender inflection in the target language. To analyse this, we use contrastive explanations and compute saliency attribution. We first address the challenge of a lacking scoring threshold and specifically examine different attribution levels of source words on the model gender decisions in the translation. We compare salient source words with human perceptions of gender and demonstrate a noticeable overlap between human perceptions and model attribution. Additionally, we provide a linguistic analysis of salient words. Our work showcases the relevance of understanding model translation decisions in terms of gender, how this compares to human decisions and that this information should be leveraged to mitigate gender bias.

As Multi Agent Reinforcement Learning systems are used in safety critical applications. Understanding why agents make decisions and how they achieve collective behavior is crucial. Existing explainable AI methods struggle in multi agent settings. They fail to attribute collective outcomes to individuals, quantify emergent behaviors, or capture complex interactions. We present MACIE Multi Agent Causal Intelligence Explainer, a framework combining structural causal models, interventional counterfactuals, and Shapley values to provide comprehensive explanations. MACIE addresses three questions. First, each agent's causal contribution using interventional attribution scores. Second, system level emergent intelligence through synergy metrics separating collective effects from individual contributions. Third, actionable explanations using natural language narratives synthesizing causal insights. We evaluate MACIE across four MARL scenarios: cooperative, competitive, and mixed motive. Results show accurate outcome attribution, mean phi_i equals 5.07, standard deviation less than 0.05, detection of positive emergence in cooperative tasks, synergy index up to 0.461, and efficient computation, 0.79 seconds per dataset on CPU. MACIE uniquely combines causal rigor, emergence quantification, and multi agent support while remaining practical for real time use. This represents a step toward interpretable, trustworthy, and accountable multi agent AI.