Angel Hwang

Saleh Afroogh, Seyd Ishtiaque Ahmed, Petra Ahrweiler et al. · cmu

This study provides a cross-disciplinary examination of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches-focusing on deep neural networks (DNNs) and large language models (LLMs)-and identifies empirical and conceptual limitations in current XAI. We discuss critical symptoms that stem from deeper root causes (i.e., two paradoxes, two conceptual confusions, and five false assumptions). These fundamental problems within the current XAI research field reveal three insights: experimentally, XAI exhibits significant flaws; conceptually, it is paradoxical; and pragmatically, further attempts to reform the paradoxical XAI might exacerbate its confusion-demanding fundamental shifts and new research directions. To move beyond XAI's limitations, we propose a four-pronged synthesized paradigm shift toward reliable and certified AI development. These four components include: verification-focused Interactive AI (IAI) to establish scientific community protocols for certifying AI system performance rather than attempting post-hoc explanations, AI Epistemology for rigorous scientific foundations, User-Sensible AI to create context-aware systems tailored to specific user communities, and Model-Centered Interpretability for faithful technical analysis-together offering comprehensive post-XAI research directions.

Yahan Li, Jifan Yao, John Bosco S. Bunyi et al.

Medical question answering (QA) benchmarks often focus on multiple-choice or fact-based tasks, leaving open-ended answers to real patient questions underexplored. This gap is particularly critical in mental health, where patient questions often mix symptoms, treatment concerns, and emotional needs, requiring answers that balance clinical caution with contextual sensitivity. We present CounselBench, a large-scale benchmark developed with 100 mental health professionals to evaluate and stress-test large language models (LLMs) in realistic help-seeking scenarios. The first component, CounselBench-EVAL, contains 2,000 expert evaluations of answers from GPT-4, LLaMA 3, Gemini, and human therapists on patient questions from the public forum CounselChat. Each answer is rated across six clinically grounded dimensions, with span-level annotations and written rationales. Expert evaluations show that while LLMs achieve high scores on several dimensions, they also exhibit recurring issues, including unconstructive feedback, overgeneralization, and limited personalization or relevance. Responses were frequently flagged for safety risks, most notably unauthorized medical advice. Follow-up experiments show that LLM judges systematically overrate model responses and overlook safety concerns identified by human experts. To probe failure modes more directly, we construct CounselBench-Adv, an adversarial dataset of 120 expert-authored mental health questions designed to trigger specific model issues. Evaluation of 3,240 responses from nine LLMs reveals consistent, model-specific failure patterns. Together, CounselBench establishes a clinically grounded framework for benchmarking LLMs in mental health QA.