CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 15Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

LLMs for Explainable AI: A Comprehensive Survey

Open access
Bilal, Ahsan, Ebert, David, Lin, Beiyu·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2504.00125arXiv 2504.00125
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising approach to enhancing Explainable AI (XAI) by transforming complex machine learning outputs into easy-to-understand narratives, making model predictions more accessible to users, and helping bridge the gap between sophisticated model behavior and human interpretability. AI models, such as state-of-the-art neural networks and deep learning models, are often seen as "black boxes" due to a lack of transparency. As users cannot fully understand how the models reach conclusions, users have difficulty trusting decisions from AI models, which leads to less effective decision-making processes, reduced accountabilities, and unclear potential biases. A challenge arises in developing explainable AI (XAI) models to gain users' trust and provide insights into how models generate their outputs. With the development of Large Language Models, we want to explore the possibilities of using human language-based models, LLMs, for model explainabilities. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of existing approaches regarding LLMs for XAI, and evaluation techniques for LLM-generated explanation, discusses the corresponding challenges and limitations, and examines real-world applications. Finally, we discuss future directions by emphasizing the need for more interpretable, automated, user-centric, and multidisciplinary approaches for XAI via LLMs.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.00125

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bilal, A., Ebert, D., & Lin, B.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2504.00125
arXiv
2504.00125
OpenAlex
W4417223409
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, explainable AI, LLM-generated explanations, automated explanation generation, explanation evaluation, black-box models, interpretability, user trust in AI, explainable deep learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review