The COVID Fake News dataset is a collection of mostly COVID-19 pandemic-specific news headlines and brief claims. The data is representative of the combination of proven factual statements and much misleading or outright false information widespread on digital platforms during the pandemic. The data set was then preprocessed and split into training (8,160 samples) and testing (2,041 samples) categories in a balanced portion so that both real and fake labels could be checked robustly. The dataset used to check whether the pipeline can be applied to other domains rather than the pandemic area is the FakeNewsNet GossipCop. This dataset lies in the domain of entertainment and celebrity news and it is one of the prominent areas where gossip, rumors, fabricated stories are prevalent. Approximately 10,000 samples were used to train, and 2,500 samples were used to test. In the present dataset, the labels distinguish the news objects as Real or Fake by fact-checking them with regards to the original GossipCop platform. The two datasets were combined, standardized, and stratified to ensure the balanced classes in the samples during training and validation. Such prudent training has the benefit of enabling these models to improve in identifying subtle signs in language that may be contained in actual and made-up claims that can be used in enhancing the pipeline to perform better in practical misinformation detection applications.

Time-series forecasting underpins critical decisions across aviation, energy, retail and health. Classical autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models offer interpretability via coefficients but struggle with nonlinearities, whereas tree-based machine-learning models such as XGBoost deliver high accuracy but are often opaque. This paper presents a unified framework for interpreting time-series forecasts using local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) and SHapley additive exPlanations (SHAP). We convert a univariate series into a leakage-free supervised learning problem, train a gradient-boosted tree alongside an ARIMA baseline and apply post-hoc explainability. Using the Air Passengers dataset as a case study, we show that a small set of lagged features -- particularly the twelve-month lag -- and seasonal encodings explain most forecast variance. We contribute: (i) a methodology for applying LIME and SHAP to time series without violating chronology; (ii) theoretical exposition of the underlying algorithms; (iii) empirical evaluation with extensive analysis; and (iv) guidelines for practitioners.

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.

--Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text classification, but their complexity hinders interpretability, making it difficult to understand the reasoning behind their predictions. Explainable AI (XAI) methods like LIME and SHAP offer local explanations by identifying influential words, but they rely on computationally expensive perturbations. These methods typically generate thousands of perturbed sentences and perform inferences on each, incurring a substantial computational burden, especially with LLMs. T o address this, we propose P erturbation-free L ocal Ex planation (PLEX), a novel method that leverages the contextual embeddings extracted from the LLM and a "Siamese network" style neural network trained to align with feature importance scores. This one-off training eliminates the need for subsequent perturbations, enabling efficient explanations for any new sentence. We demonstrate PLEX's effectiveness on four different classification tasks (sentiment, fake news, fake COVID-19 news and depression), showing more than 92% agreement with LIME and SHAP . Our evaluation using a "stress test" reveals that PLEX accurately identifies influential words, leading to a similar decline in classification accuracy as observed with LIME and SHAP when these words are removed. Notably, in some cases, PLEX demonstrates superior performance in capturing the impact of key features. PLEX dramatically accelerates explanation, reducing time and computational overhead by two and four orders of magnitude, respectively. This work offers a promising solution for explainable LLM-based text classification. ARGE language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced text classification, achieving state-of-the-art results in tasks like emotion recognition, sentiment analysis, topic categorization, and spam detection [1]. Powered by transformer architectures with millions or billions of parameters, they effectively capture complex linguistic patterns. However, the very complexity that enables their high performance also renders their internal workings opaque and difficult to interpret.

Interpretability analysis methods for artificial intelligence models, such as LIME and SHAP, are widely used, though they primarily serve as post-model for analyzing model outputs. While it is commonly believed that the transparency and interpretability of AI models diminish as their complexity increases, currently there is no standardized method for assessing the inherent interpretability of the models themselves. This paper uses bond market default prediction as a case study, applying commonly used machine learning algorithms within AI models. First, the classification performance of these algorithms in default prediction is evaluated. Then, leveraging LIME and SHAP to assess the contribution of sample features to prediction outcomes, the paper proposes a novel method for evaluating the interpretability of the models themselves. The results of this analysis are consistent with the intuitive understanding and logical expectations regarding the interpretability of these models.

Machine learning models have undeniably achieved impressive performance across a range of applications. However, their often perceived black-box nature, and lack of transparency in decision-making, have raised concerns about understanding their predictions. To tackle this challenge, researchers have developed methods to provide explanations for machine learning models. In this paper, we introduce LaPLACE-explainer, designed to provide probabilistic cause-and-effect explanations for any classifier operating on tabular data, in a human-understandable manner. The LaPLACE-Explainer component leverages the concept of a Markov blanket to establish statistical boundaries between relevant and non-relevant features automatically. This approach results in the automatic generation of optimal feature subsets, serving as explanations for predictions. Importantly, this eliminates the need to predetermine a fixed number N of top features as explanations, enhancing the flexibility and adaptability of our methodology. Through the incorporation of conditional probabilities, our approach offers probabilistic causal explanations and outperforms LIME and SHAP (well-known model-agnostic explainers) in terms of local accuracy and consistency of explained features. LaPLACE's soundness, consistency, local accuracy, and adaptability are rigorously validated across various classification models. Furthermore, we demonstrate the practical utility of these explanations via experiments with both simulated and real-world datasets. This encompasses addressing trust-related issues, such as evaluating prediction reliability, facilitating model selection, enhancing trustworthiness, and identifying fairness-related concerns within classifiers.

Recent years have witnessed the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and machine learning (ML) models. Despite their tremendous success, a number of vital problems like ML model brittleness, their fairness, and the lack of interpretability warrant the need for the active developments in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) and formal ML model verification. The two major lines of work in XAI include feature selection methods, e.g. Anchors, and feature attribution techniques, e.g. LIME and SHAP. Despite their promise, most of the existing feature selection and attribution approaches are susceptible to a range of critical issues, including explanation unsoundness and out-of-distribution sampling. A recent formal approach to XAI (FXAI) although serving as an alternative to the above and free of these issues suffers from a few other limitations. For instance and besides the scalability limitation, the formal approach is unable to tackle the feature attribution problem. Additionally, a formal explanation despite being formally sound is typically quite large, which hampers its applicability in practical settings. Motivated by the above, this paper proposes a way to apply the apparatus of formal XAI to the case of feature attribution based on formal explanation enumeration. Formal feature attribution (FFA) is argued to be advantageous over the existing methods, both formal and non-formal. Given the practical complexity of the problem, the paper then proposes an efficient technique for approximating exact FFA. Finally, it offers experimental evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed approximate FFA in comparison to the existing feature attribution algorithms not only in terms of feature importance and but also in terms of their relative order.

Context: The identification of bugs within the reported issues in an issue tracker is crucial for the triage of issues. Machine learning models have shown promising results regarding the performance of automated issue type prediction. However, we have only limited knowledge beyond our assumptions how such models identify bugs. LIME and SHAP are popular technique to explain the predictions of classifiers. Objective: We want to understand if machine learning models provide explanations for the classification that are reasonable to us as humans and align with our assumptions of what the models should learn. We also want to know if the prediction quality is correlated with the quality of explanations. Method: We conduct a study where we rate LIME and SHAP explanations based on their quality of explaining the outcome of an issue type prediction model. For this, we rate the quality of the explanations themselves, i.e., if they align with our expectations and if they help us to understand the underlying machine learning model.