XAI-Refine: An Automated Explanation-Knowledge Loop for Brain-Age Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09388v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 19:40:42 GMT
• Title: XAI-Refine: An Automated Explanation-Knowledge Loop for Brain-Age Prediction
• Abstract summary: We propose an automated explanation loop for brain-age prediction from resting-state functional connectivity.<n>XAI-Refine consolidates complementary post-hoc analyses across repeated training runs into reliable, structured model explanations.<n>It converts each reliable explanation into a neutral neurobiological question, retrieves and verifies relevant literature, and compiles the verified evidence into an admissible set.
• Score: 8.369324356989523
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Brain-age prediction models are commonly evaluated by predictive accuracy, yet accurate predictions alone do not establish that a model relies on reproducible or neurobiologically supported mechanisms. Post-hoc explanation methods can expose these mechanisms, but existing workflows typically stop at diagnosis or require correction targets to be specified before model analysis. We propose XAI-Refine, an automated explanation-knowledge loop for brain-age prediction from resting-state functional connectivity. At each iteration, XAI-Refine consolidates complementary post-hoc analyses across repeated training runs into reliable, structured model explanations. It converts each reliable explanation into a neutral neurobiological question, retrieves and verifies relevant literature, and compiles the verified evidence into an admissible set in the same typed explanation space. The target for refinement is defined as the minimal projection of the current model explanation onto the admissible set induced by applicable verified knowledge. This revised explanation is then translated into a differentiable constraint while preserving the originating model variable, measurement operator, and applicable scope. Candidate updates are promoted only when multi-seed validation confirms target-directed explanatory movement, predictive performance remains within a prespecified guardrail, and non-target explanatory drift remains bounded. Experiments on functional-connectivity-based brain-age prediction evaluate predictive performance, explanation reliability, literature alignment, and target-specific model revision, illustrating a structured route from post-hoc analysis to evidence-guided model refinement.

Related papers

• A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Explainability in Media Bias Detection [10.798797986346914]
  We present a multi-dimensional evaluation of explainability in encoder-based media bias detection using the Bias s By Experts dataset.<n>We study BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers along three complementary axes: predictive performance, explanation plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness.<n>Our findings suggest that predictive performance, attribution plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness characterize different aspects of model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T09:29:49Z)
• Decoding the Critique Mechanism in Large Reasoning Models [50.821607345799386]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit backtracking and self-verification mechanisms that enable them to revise intermediate steps and reach correct solutions.<n>We investigate how current LRMs recover from errors by inserting arithmetic mistakes in their intermediate reasoning steps.<n>We find that despite the error propagating through the chain-of-thought, the model still reaches the correct final answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T10:03:30Z)
• Improving Perturbation-based Explanations by Understanding the Role of Uncertainty Calibration [34.62583246144584]
  We show that models produce unreliable probability estimates when subjected to explainability-specific perturbations.<n>We introduce ReCalX, a novel approach to recalibrate models for improved explanations while preserving their original predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T16:04:11Z)
• Internal Causal Mechanisms Robustly Predict Language Model Out-of-Distribution Behaviors [61.92704516732144]
  We show that the most robust features for correctness prediction are those that play a distinctive causal role in the model's behavior.<n>We propose two methods that leverage causal mechanisms to predict the correctness of model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T00:31:39Z)
• Counterfactuals of Counterfactuals: a back-translation-inspired approach to analyse counterfactual editors [3.4253416336476246]
  We focus on the analysis of counterfactual, contrastive explanations. We propose a new back translation-inspired evaluation methodology. We show that by iteratively feeding the counterfactual to the explainer we can obtain valuable insights into the behaviour of both the predictor and the explainer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T16:04:28Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Pathologies of Pre-trained Language Models in Few-shot Fine-tuning [50.3686606679048]
  We show that pre-trained language models with few examples show strong prediction bias across labels. Although few-shot fine-tuning can mitigate the prediction bias, our analysis shows models gain performance improvement by capturing non-task-related features. These observations alert that pursuing model performance with fewer examples may incur pathological prediction behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-17T15:55:18Z)
• Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models [77.34726150561087]
  We define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. This paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T05:59:50Z)
• Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable Explanations [64.85696493596821]
  In computer vision applications, generative counterfactual methods indicate how to perturb a model's input to change its prediction. We propose a counterfactual method that learns a perturbation in a disentangled latent space that is constrained using a diversity-enforcing loss. Our model improves the success rate of producing high-quality valuable explanations when compared to previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-18T12:57:34Z)
• Explainable AI by BAPC -- Before and After correction Parameter Comparison [0.0]
  A local surrogate for an AI-model correcting a simpler 'base' model is introduced representing an analytical method to yield explanations of AI-predictions. The AI-model approximates the residual error of the linear model and the explanations are formulated in terms of the change of the interpretable base model's parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-12T09:03:51Z)

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.