# Towards Faithful Agentic XAI: A Verification Method and an Open-World Benchmark for Better Model Faithfulness

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27879 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27879/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 23 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.11279/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.10574/) (2018)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02478/) (2020)
- [Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07814/) (2018)
- [Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11190/) (2019)
- [Benchmarking the Spectrum of Agent Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.06780/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.01831/) (2020)
- [One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03012/) (2019)
- [Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.11326/) (2022)
- [TalkToModel: Explaining Machine Learning Models with Interactive Natural Language Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04154/) (2022)
- [Is Conversational XAI All You Need? Human-AI Decision Making With a Conversational XAI Assistant](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17546/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Explanation Methods for Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.01672/) (2020)
- [Measuring User Understanding in Dialogue-based XAI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06960/) (2024)
- [May I Ask a Follow-up Question? Understanding the Benefits of Conversations in Neural Network Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13965/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (XAI) helps users interpret model behavior and identify potential faults. Agentic XAI systems use Large Language Models (LLMs) to make explanations more accessible through natural-language interaction, but they can also produce plausible yet unfaithful explanations. This risk arises because unreliable XAI outputs for complex models can be amplified by LLMs and mislead users. We propose Faithful Agentic XAI (FAX), a framework that improves explanation faithfulness through explicit verification. FAX decomposes draft explanations into claims and cross-checks them against inherently faithful tools, filtering unsupported or contradictory claims before final generation. We also introduce CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, an open-world reinforcement learning benchmark with complex policies, diverse goals, and challenging scenarios for assessing model-specific faithfulness. On CRAFTER-XAI-Bench, FAX improves simulation faithfulness from 0.20 for the strongest baseline to 0.46 while maintaining high informativeness, relevance, and fluency. On three tabular benchmarks, FAX performs competitively with prior Agentic XAI baselines, but our analysis shows that these settings can conflate task accuracy with model-specific faithfulness. These findings show that explicit verification is essential for faithful Agentic XAI and that that faithfulness benchmarks must be designed to test explanations against the behavior of the target model itself.