When applicants get rejected by a high-stakes algorithmic decision system, recourse explanations provide actionable suggestions for applicants on how to change their input features to get a positive evaluation. A crucial yet overlooked phenomenon is that recourse explanations are performative: When many applicants act according to their recommendations, their collective behavior may shift the data distribution and, once the model is refitted, also the decision boundary. Consequently, the recourse algorithm may render its own recommendations invalid, such that applicants who make the effort of implementing their recommendations may be rejected again when they reapply. In this work, we formally characterize the conditions under which recourse explanations remain valid under their own performative effects. In particular, we prove that recourse actions may become invalid if they are influenced by or if they intervene on non-causal variables. Based on this analysis, we caution against the use of standard counterfactual explanation and causal recourse methods, and instead advocate for recourse methods that recommend actions exclusively on causal variables.

Time series analysis provides essential insights for real-world system dynamics and informs downstream decision-making, yet most existing methods often overlook the rich contextual signals present in auxiliary modalities. To bridge this gap, we introduce TimeXL, a multi-modal prediction framework that integrates a prototypebased time series encoder with three collaborating Large Language Models (LLMs) to deliver more accurate predictions and interpretable explanations. First, a multimodal prototype-based encoder processes both time series and textual inputs to generate preliminary forecasts alongside case-based rationales. These outputs then feed into a prediction LLM, which refines the forecasts by reasoning over the encoder's predictions and explanations. Next, a reflection LLM compares the predicted values against the ground truth, identifying textual inconsistencies or noise. Guided by this feedback, a refinement LLM iteratively enhances text quality and triggers encoder retraining. This closed-loop workflow--prediction, critique (reflect), and refinement--continuously boosts the framework's performance and interpretability. Empirical evaluations on four real-world datasets demonstrate that TimeXL achieves up to 8.9% improvement in AUC and produces human-centric, multi-modal explanations, highlighting the power of LLM-driven reasoning for time series prediction.

Machine learning models now influence decisions that directly affect people's lives, making it important to understand not only their predictions, but also how individuals could act to obtain better results. Algorithmic recourse provides actionable input modifications to achieve more favorable outcomes, typically relying on counterfactual explanations to suggest such changes. However, when the Rashomon set - the set of near-optimal models - is large, standard counterfactual explanations can become unreliable, as a recourse action valid for one model may fail under another. We introduce ElliCE, a novel framework for robust algorithmic recourse that optimizes counterfactuals over an ellipsoidal approximation of the Rashomon set. The resulting explanations are provably valid over this ellipsoid, with theoretical guarantees on uniqueness, stability, and alignment with key feature directions. Empirically, ElliCE generates counterfactuals that are not only more robust but also more flexible, adapting to user-specified feature constraints while being substantially faster than existing baselines. This provides a principled and practical solution for reliable recourse under model uncertainty, ensuring stable recommendations for users even as models evolve.

Deep networks have shown remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks, yet getting a global concept-level understanding of how they function remains a key challenge. Many post-hoc concept-based approaches have been introduced to understand their workings, yet they are not always faithful to the model. Further, they make restrictive assumptions on the concepts a model learns, such as classspecificity, small spatial extent, or alignment to human expectations. In this work, we put emphasis on the faithfulness of such concept-based explanations and propose a new model with model-inherent mechanistic concept-explanations. Our concepts are shared across classes and, from any layer, their contribution to the logit and their input-visualization can be faithfully traced. We also leverage foundation models to propose a new concept-consistency metric, C2-score, that can be used to evaluate concept-based methods. Compared to prior work, we show that our concepts are quantitatively more consistent and that users find them to be more interpretable, while retaining competitive ImageNet performance. 1

Understanding and explaining the behavior of machine learning models is essential for building transparent and trustworthy AI systems. We introduce DEXTER, a data-free framework that employs diffusion models and large language models to generate global, textual explanations of visual classifiers. DEXTER operates by optimizing text prompts to synthesize class-conditional images that strongly activate a target classifier. These synthetic samples are then used to elicit detailed natural language reports that describe class-specific decision patterns and biases. Unlike prior work, DEXTER enables natural language explanation about a classifier's decision process without access to training data or groundtruth labels. We demonstrate DEXTER's flexibility across three tasks--activation maximization, slice discovery and debiasing, and bias explanation--each illustrating its ability to uncover the internal mechanisms of visual classifiers. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations, including a user study, show that DEXTER produces accurate, interpretable outputs. Experiments on ImageNet, Waterbirds, CelebA, and FairFaces confirm that DEXTER outperforms existing approaches in global model explanation and class-level bias reporting.

It also discusses evaluation metrics and the use of explanations to debug models and improve performance.

Recent advancements in AI agents have demonstrated their growing potential to drive and support scientific discovery. In this work, we introduce MLR-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI agents on open-ended machine learning research. MLR-Bench includes three key components: (1) 201 research tasks sourced from NeurIPS, ICLR, and ICML workshops covering diverse ML topics; (2) MLR-Judge, an automated evaluation framework combining LLMbased reviewers with carefully designed review rubrics to assess research quality; and (3) MLR-Agent, a modular agent scaffold capable of completing research tasks through four stages: idea generation, proposal formulation, experimentation, and paper writing. Our framework supports both stepwise assessment across these distinct research stages, and end-to-end evaluation of the final research paper. We then use MLR-Bench to evaluate six frontier LLMs and an advanced coding agent, finding that while LLMs are effective at generating coherent ideas and well-structured papers, current coding agents frequently (e.g., in 80% of the cases) produce fabricated or invalidated experimental results--posing a major barrier to scientific reliability.

Graphs are complex, non-Euclidean structures that require specialized models, such as Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Graph Transformers, or kernel-based approaches, to effectively capture their relational patterns. This inherent complexity makes explaining GNNs decisions particularly challenging. Most existing explainable AI (XAI) methods for GNNs focus on identifying influential nodes or extracting subgraphs that highlight relevant motifs. However, these approaches often fall short of clarifying how such elements contribute to the final prediction. To overcome this limitation, logic-based explanations aim to derive explicit logical rules that reflect the model's decision-making process.

Effective explanations of video action recognition models should disentangle how movements unfold over time from the surrounding spatial context. However, existing methods--based on saliency--produce entangled explanations, making it unclear whether predictions rely on motion or spatial context. Language-based approaches offer structure but often fail to explain motions due to their tacit nature--intuitively understood but difficult to verbalize. To address these challenges, we propose Disentangled Action aNd Context concept-based Explainable (DANCE) video action recognition, a framework that predicts actions through disentangled concept types: motion dynamics, objects, and scenes. We define motion dynamics concepts as human pose sequences. We employ a large language model to automatically extract object and scene concepts. Built on an ante-hoc concept bottleneck design, DANCE enforces prediction through these concepts. Experiments on four datasets--KTH, Penn Action, HAA500, and UCF101--demonstrate that DANCE significantly improves explanation clarity with competitive performance.

Training reasoning language models (LMs) with reinforcement learning (RL) for one-hot correctness inherently relies on the LM being able to explore and solve its task with some chance at initialization. Furthermore, a key use case of reasoning LMs is to act as teachers for distilling new students and cold-starting future RL iterations rather than being deployed themselves. From these considerations, we introduce a new framework that avoids RL's exploration challenge by training a new class of Reinforcement-Learned Teachers (RLTs) focused on yielding the most effective downstream distillation. RLTs are prompted with both the question and solution to each problem, and tasked to simply "connect-the-dots" with detailed explanations tailored for their students. We train RLTs with dense rewards obtained by feeding each explanation to the student and testing its understanding of the problem's solution. In practice, the raw outputs of a 7BRLT provide higher final performance on competition and graduate-level tasks than existing distillation and cold-starting pipelines that collect and postprocess the reasoning traces of orders of magnitude larger LMs. Furthermore, RLTs maintain their effectiveness when training larger students and when applied zero-shot to out-of-distribution tasks, unlocking new levels of efficiency and re-usability for the RL reasoning framework.