# Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14123 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.14123/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Circuits and mechanistic analysis, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability.
- Builds on 57 of its 81 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [Circuits and mechanistic analysis](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/circuits-and-mechanistic-analysis/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 57)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04730/) (2017)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Toy Models of Superposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.10652/) (2022)
- [Attention is not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10186/) (2019)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Attention is not not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04626/) (2019)
- [Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07697/) (2019)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04093/) (2024)
- [A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.10758/) (2018)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.06321/) (2015)
- [The (Un)reliability of saliency methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00867/) (2017)
- [Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.06514/) (2018)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.11371/) (2020)
- [Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02478/) (2020)
- [On Completeness-aware Concept-Based Explanations in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.07969/) (2019)
- [AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17148/) (2025)
- [Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06342/) (2019)
- [Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.16496/) (2025)
- [One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03012/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Explaining Image Similarity with Automatically Extracted Concept Activation Vectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28386/) (2026)
- [Challenges in Evaluating Explanation Methods for Static and Evolving Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06351/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the proliferation of Explainable AI (XAI) techniques -- from feature attributions to sparse autoencoders -- explanations rarely influence real-world workflows. In practice, they are often generated and discarded without guiding meaningful action. This gap reflects foundational shortcomings: research has not yet established methodologies for integrating explanations into end-to-end, human-in-the-loop systems. This position paper argues that the machine learning community must pivot from ad-hoc XAI methods toward addressing foundational & structural challenges, including unclear problem formulations, underspecified evaluation objectives, and the absence of pipelines for explanation-driven feedback. We support this claim through an analysis of recent ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR papers and a survey of XAI practitioners, revealing recurring issues that limit cumulative progress. We conclude by outlining a practical checklist designed to shift XAI toward a more human-centered, action-oriented paradigm. By emphasizing foundational clarity over the development of ad-hoc methods, we hope to provide a roadmap for integrating explanations into actionable, feedback-driven AI systems.