ExplainGuard: A Zero Trust Framework for Post-Hoc Explanation Integrity Guarantees in Blackbox XAI Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21803v1
• Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 06:52:09 GMT
• Title: ExplainGuard: A Zero Trust Framework for Post-Hoc Explanation Integrity Guarantees in Blackbox XAI Models
• Abstract summary: Current auditing paradigm relies on an implicit "chain of trust" where third-party auditors are assumed to be trusted.<n>Recent research demonstrates that this assumption is flawed and adversarial auditors can manipulate XAI explanations.<n>We introduce ExplainGuard, that leverages a Zero-Trust architecture (ZTA) design to be incorporated within the XAI explanation supply chain.
• Score: 0.573978744524696
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, explainable AI (XAI) methods like SHAP and LIME have become essential for regulatory compliance and trust. However, the current auditing paradigm relies on an implicit "chain of trust" where third-party auditors are assumed to be trusted. Recent research demonstrates that this assumption is flawed and adversarial auditors can manipulate XAI explanations through manipulation attacks such as output shuffling or scaffolding out-of-distribution (OOD) to conceal model biases while maintaining high prediction accuracy aiming for fairwashed explanation. In this paper, we introduce a novel defense framework, ExplainGuard, that leverages a Zero-Trust architecture (ZTA) design to be incorporated within the XAI explanation supply chain and ensures the integrity of the generated explanation. This framework would help us to replace the ambiguous default assumption of "auditor is trustworthy," with a continuous "verify-then-trust" approach. Our design architecture establishes a Policy Decision Point (PDP) that enforces three distinct pillars of verification before any explanation is released to the user: (1) asset integrity via behavioral fingerprint to detect model substitution, (2) semantic validity using axiomatic consistency checks to reject mathematically impossible explanations, and (3) feature faithfulness verification utilizing a ranking stability approach with minimal computational overhead. Finally, we evaluate how ExplainGuard can effectively neutralize state- of-the-art explanation manipulation attacks while transforming the auditing process into a verifiable operation.

Related papers

• Prediction certification cannot replace explanation certification: a competence envelope for trustworthy AI under compound stress [0.0]
  We show that a reliable model and a compromised one can be identical under every prediction-side certificate.<n>We introduce a framework that combines prediction and explanation certification into a single deployable criterion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T07:45:17Z)
• Does Reasoning Preserve Alignment? On the Trustworthiness of Large Reasoning Models [55.788110316999166]
  We compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against instruction-tuned baselines.<n>We observe that reasoning models often improve on reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions.<n>These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T16:14:27Z)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• From CRUD to Autonomous Agents: Formal Validation and Zero-Trust Security for Semantic Gateways in AI-Native Enterprise Systems [0.0]
  This paper proposes the design, formal validation, and empirical evaluation of a Semantic Gateway governed by the Model Context Protocol (MCP)<n>The gateway reframes the enterprise API as a semantic surface where tools are dynamically discovered, authorized, and executed based on intent and policy enforcement.<n>The architecture introduces a three-layer Zero-Trust security model comprising a pre-inference Semantic Firewall, deterministic Tool-Level RBAC, and out-of-band Cryptographic Human-in-the-Loop approval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T12:25:06Z)
• Verifiable Reasoning for LLM-based Generative Recommendation [106.7765000777685]
  Reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently shown strong potential in enhancing generative recommendation.<n>We propose a novel textbftextitreason-verify-recommend paradigm, which interleaves reasoning with verification to provide reliable feedback.<n>Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that VRec substantially enhances recommendation effectiveness and scalability without compromising efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T16:55:45Z)
• TraceGuard: Process-Guided Firewall against Reasoning Backdoors in Large Language Models [19.148124494194317]
  We propose TraceGuard, a process-guided security framework that transforms small-scale models into robust reasoning firewalls.<n>Our approach treats the reasoning trace as an untrusted payload and establishes a defense-in-depth strategy.<n>We demonstrate robustness against adaptive adversaries in a grey-box setting, establishing TraceGuard as a viable, low-latency security primitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T22:19:13Z)
• Critical or Compliant? The Double-Edged Sword of Reasoning in Chain-of-Thought Explanations [60.27156500679296]
  We study the role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones.<n>Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed.<n>These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:38:49Z)
• TRUST: A Decentralized Framework for Auditing Large Language Model Reasoning [45.228233498964755]
  Large Language Models generate reasoning chains that reveal their decision-making.<n>Existing auditing methods are centralized, opaque, and hard to scale.<n>We propose TRUST, a transparent, decentralized auditing framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T04:16:44Z)
• VeriLLM: A Lightweight Framework for Publicly Verifiable Decentralized Inference [3.8760740008451156]
  We introduce VeriLLM, a publicly verifiable protocol for decentralized language models (LLMs) inference.<n>VeriLLM combines lightweight empirical rerunning with cryptographic commitments, allowing verifiers to validate results at approximately 1% of the underlying inference cost.<n>We show that VeriLLM achieves reliable public verifiability with minimal overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T04:07:32Z)
• Confidential Guardian: Cryptographically Prohibiting the Abuse of Model Abstention [65.47632669243657]
  A dishonest institution can exploit mechanisms to discriminate or unjustly deny services under the guise of uncertainty.<n>We demonstrate the practicality of this threat by introducing an uncertainty-inducing attack called Mirage.<n>We propose Confidential Guardian, a framework that analyzes calibration metrics on a reference dataset to detect artificially suppressed confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T19:47:50Z)
• Kick Bad Guys Out! Conditionally Activated Anomaly Detection in Federated Learning with Zero-Knowledge Proof Verification [31.38942054994932]
  Federated Learning (FL) systems are susceptible to adversarial attacks.<n>RedJasper is a two-staged anomaly detection method specifically designed for real-world FL deployments.<n>It identifies suspicious activities in the first stage, then activates the second stage conditionally to further scrutinize the suspicious local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-06T07:09:05Z)
• Trust but Verify: Assigning Prediction Credibility by Counterfactual Constrained Learning [123.3472310767721]
  Prediction credibility measures are fundamental in statistics and machine learning. These measures should account for the wide variety of models used in practice. The framework developed in this work expresses the credibility as a risk-fit trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-24T19:52:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.