Transformers have improved the state-of-the-art in various natural language processing and computer vision tasks.

GDLNN combines a domain-specific programming language, called GDL, with neural networks. The main strength of GDLNN lies in its GDL layer, which generates expressive and interpretable graph representations. Since the graph representation is interpretable, existing model explanation techniques can be directly applied to explain GDLNN's predictions. Our evaluation shows that the GDL-based representation achieves high accuracy on most graph classification benchmark datasets, outperforming dominant graph learning methods such as GNNs. Applying an existing model explanation technique also yields high-quality explanations of GDLNN's predictions. Furthermore, the cost of GDLNN is low when the explanation cost is included. In graph classification, graph representation learning holds the key to success. The goal of this task is to learn useful feature representations (embeddings) for the entire graph that effectively capture its key structure and properties. These representations are utilized in various graph machine learning tasks, including graph classification. Beyond predictive performance, learning interpretable graph representations has become increasingly important, as it directly impacts model explainability, crucial in decision-critical domains such as drug discovery (Kakkad et al., 2023).

Post hoc explanation methods, such as LIME and SHAP, provide interpretable insights into black-box classifiers and are increasingly used to assess model biases and generalizability. However, these methods are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, potentially concealing harmful biases. Building on the work of Slack et al. (2020), we investigate the susceptibility of LIME and SHAP to biased models and evaluate strategies for improving robustness. We first replicate the original COMPAS experiment to validate prior findings and establish a baseline. We then introduce a modular testing framework enabling systematic evaluation of augmented and ensemble explanation approaches across classifiers of varying performance. Using this framework, we assess multiple LIME/SHAP ensemble configurations on out-of-distribution models, comparing their resistance to bias concealment against the original methods. Our results identify configurations that substantially improve bias detection, highlighting their potential for enhancing transparency in the deployment of high-stakes machine learning systems.

As machine learning systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as criminal justice, finance, and healthcare, the demand for interpretable and trustworthy models has intensified. Despite the proliferation of local explanation techniques, including SHAP, LIME, and counterfactual methods, there exists no standardized, reproducible framework for their comparative evaluation, particularly in fairness-sensitive settings. We introduce ExplainBench, an open-source benchmarking suite for systematic evaluation of local model explanations across ethically consequential datasets. ExplainBench provides unified wrappers for popular explanation algorithms, integrates end-to-end pipelines for model training and explanation generation, and supports evaluation via fidelity, sparsity, and robustness metrics. The framework includes a Streamlit-based graphical interface for interactive exploration and is packaged as a Python module for seamless integration into research workflows. We demonstrate ExplainBench on datasets commonly used in fairness research, such as COMPAS, UCI Adult Income, and LendingClub, and showcase how different explanation methods behave under a shared experimental protocol. By enabling reproducible, comparative analysis of local explanations, ExplainBench advances the methodological foundations of interpretable machine learning and facilitates accountability in real-world AI systems.

As machine learning models are increasingly considered for high-stakes domains, effective explanation methods are crucial to ensure that their prediction strategies are transparent to the user. Over the years, numerous metrics have been proposed to assess quality of explanations. However, their practical applicability remains unclear, in particular due to a limited understanding of which specific aspects each metric rewards. In this paper we propose a new framework based on spectral analysis of explanation outcomes to systematically capture the multifaceted properties of different explanation techniques. Our analysis uncovers two distinct factors of explanation quality-stability and target sensitivity-that can be directly observed through spectral decomposition. Experiments on both MNIST and ImageNet show that popular evaluation techniques (e.g., pixel-flipping, entropy) partially capture the trade-offs between these factors. Overall, our framework provides a foundational basis for understanding explanation quality, guiding the development of more reliable techniques for evaluating explanations.

A common trait of many machine learning models is that it is often difficult to understand and explain what caused the model to produce the given output. While the explainability of neural networks has been an active field of research in the last years, comparably little is known for quantum machine learning models. Despite a few recent works analyzing some specific aspects of explainability, as of now there is no clear big picture perspective as to what can be expected from quantum learning models in terms of explainability. In this work, we address this issue by identifying promising research avenues in this direction and lining out the expected future results. We additionally propose two explanation methods designed specifically for quantum machine learning models, as first of their kind to the best of our knowledge. Next to our pre-view of the field, we compare both existing and novel methods to explain the predictions of quantum learning models. By studying explainability in quantum machine learning, we can contribute to the sustainable development of the field, preventing trust issues in the future.

In this paper, we investigate the impact of adversarial attacks on the explainability of deep learning models, which are commonly criticized for their black-box nature despite their capacity for autonomous feature extraction. This black-box nature can affect the perceived trustworthiness of these models. To address this, explainability techniques such as GradCAM, SmoothGrad, and LIME have been developed to clarify model decision-making processes. Our research focuses on the robustness of these explanations when models are subjected to adversarial attacks, specifically those involving subtle image perturbations that are imperceptible to humans but can significantly mislead models. For this, we utilize attack methods like the Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) and the Basic Iterative Method (BIM) and observe their effects on model accuracy and explanations. The results reveal a substantial decline in model accuracy, with accuracies dropping from 89.94% to 58.73% and 45.50% under FGSM and BIM attacks, respectively. Despite these declines in accuracy, the explanation of the models measured by metrics such as Intersection over Union (IoU) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) shows negligible changes, suggesting that these metrics may not be sensitive enough to detect the presence of adversarial perturbations.