Skip to content
Review

Who Are You Explaining To? A Multi-Agent System for Audience-Aware XAI Narratives

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 49 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work introduces XstrAI, an audience-aware multi-agent framework that treats local explanations as fixed evidence and structures how it is communicated to each target reader, and evaluates XstrAI on diabetes and stroke risk prediction against 11 baselines.

Abstract

Feature-attribution methods such as SHAP provide useful evidence about individual model predictions, but their numerical outputs are rarely sufficient for audiences with different expertise, goals, and risks of misinterpretation. In medical AI, the same local explanation must reach patients, clinicians, and data scientists through markedly different forms of communication, and naive verbalization through large language models (LLMs) is prone to weak grounding, conflation of attribution with causal language, and outputs that are persuasive without being faithful to the underlying model evidence. We introduce XstrAI, an audience-aware multi-agent framework that treats local explanations as fixed evidence and structures how it is communicated to each target reader. Each prediction case is encoded as an immutable structured representation, shared identically across audiences so the underlying evidence remains fixed. Generation is factored into three specialized LLM agents responsible for audience-aware planning, linguistic realization, and validation for grounding, attribution consistency, communicative risk, and audience appropriateness, with a bounded revision loop triggered on detected inconsistencies. We evaluate XstrAI on diabetes and stroke risk prediction against 11 baselines, ranging from direct verbalization to a re-implementation of a state-of-the-art narrator. The evaluation combines an intra-narrative regime measuring fidelity to SHAP evidence with an extra-narrative regime assessing audience appropriateness through reference corpora, multi-family LLM judges, and a survey with target readers. In both evaluations, XstrAI's narratives are consistently assigned to their intended audience by independent judges, and preferred over all baselines on Clinician and Patient audiences, with competitive performance on Data Scientist, where audience-conditioned single-prompt baselines lead.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

ClueWeaver: Reward-Guided Dual-Agent Evidence Reasoning for Compact LLMs on Literary Long Narratives

Experiments across multiple long-context narrative question answering and claim verification settings show that ClueWeaver substantially improves local end-to-end language models while providing evidence coverage and paragraph-referenced reasoning traces.

Ji-Hao Zhu, Zhi-Wei Yang, Wen-Xiao Zhang et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Who Are They to Each Other? Multi-Agent Reasoning for Speaker Relationship Inference

This work proposes Multi-Role Multi-Agent Debate as a task-specific adaptation of standard multi-agent debate for speaker relationship inference, assigning agents complementary roles or social-theory-grounded perspectives rather than a single undifferentiated viewpoint, and introduces Multi-Agent Compete, a competition...

Yao-Han Guan, Yen-Ju Lu, Yu-Zhe Wang et al. · 0 citations
Book Open access Sep 2026

Beyond Verdicts: Explainable Fact-Checking via a Linguistically-Grounded Multi-Agent Framework

Automated fact-checking systems still fall short of producing explanations that mirror the depth and structure of expert human reasoning. In this work, we propose a multi-agent framework that integrates five specialized linguistic agents covering polarization, linguistic style, argumentation, plausibility, and contextu...

Pedro Henrique de Oliveira Silva, L. Santos, L. Marinho et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Who is the Agent to Blame? Localizing Faithfulness and Citation Mistakes in Agentic Deep Research

An evaluation method is proposed that pinpoints which agent introduced each error by locally testing agent invocations for faithfulness and verifiability relative to their own inputs and proposes a four-type taxonomy to categorize the discovered errors: hallucination, uncited input reliance, uncited output, or insuffic...

Eran Hirsch, David Wan, Han Wang et al. · 1 citation
Jul 2026

Not true but believable

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s metafictional short story, “Jumping Monkey Hill” is used as a laboratory to explore the relationship between fictionality and believability in a situation where rhetorical cues about a text’s ontological status are misleading and how literary ways of reading might inform engagement with AI te...

J. Freed · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.