aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that while autonomous LLM agents can iteratively refine XAI explanations for agricultural decision support, quality peaks early and degrades with excessive iteration due to a bias-variance trade-off. The findings challenge the assumption of monotonic improvement in agentic workflows and highlight the necessity of strategic early stopping alongside expert-anchored screening for LLM judges. Ultimately, this research provides critical insights into optimizing the balance between technical specificity and narrative clarity in high-stakes AI applications.
Agentic Explainable Artificial Intelligence (Agentic XAI) Approach To Explore Better Explanation: A Case Study in Decision Support for Rice Cultivation in Japan
arXiv:2512.21066v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) reveals how explanatory variables relate to a response variable, yet communicating XAI outputs to laypersons remains difficult, limiting trust in AI-based predictions. Large language models (LLMs) can translate technical explanations into accessible narratives, but iterative refinement of XAI explanations by an autonomous LLM agent remains unexplored. This study proposes an agentic XAI framework that combines SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) with iterative refinement by a multimodal LLM and tests it as an agricultural recommendation system on rice yield data from 28 fields in Japan. From a SHAP result, the agent explored additional analyses across 11 refinement rounds (Rounds 0-10). Crop scientists (n = 12) and LLM judges (n = 14) scored every round on seven criteria: Specificity, Clarity, Conciseness, Practicality, Contextual Relevance, Cost Consideration, and Crop Science Credibility. Both groups found that refinement raised the average score by 30-33% over Round 0, peaking at Rounds 3-4, after which quality declined, below the starting point for crop scientists. Refinement therefore requires strategic early stopping, which challenges assumptions of monotonic improvement. Criterion-level trajectories indicate a bias-variance trade-off. Early rounds lacked Specificity (bias), whereas excessive iteration eroded Conciseness and raised Cost Consideration through ungrounded economic reasoning (variance). The LLM judges overscored every criterion by 1.4-2.3 points but largely preserved the experts' ranking of rounds (Spearman $\rho$ = 0.58-0.90), so screened LLM judges can flag the quality peak despite unreliable absolute scores. Trustworthy agentic XAI also needs expert-anchored screening of LLM judges and transparent, verifiable refinement records.
Abstract:Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) reveals how explanatory variables relate to a response variable, yet communicating XAI outputs to laypersons remains difficult, limiting trust in AI-based predictions. Large language models (LLMs) can translate technical explanations into accessible narratives, but iterative refinement of XAI explanations by an autonomous LLM agent remains unexplored. This study proposes an agentic XAI framework that combines SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) with iterative refinement by a multimodal LLM and tests it as an agricultural recommendation system on rice yield data from 28 fields in Japan. From a SHAP result, the agent explored additional analyses across 11 refinement rounds (Rounds 0-10). Crop scientists (n = 12) and LLM judges (n = 14) scored every round on seven criteria: Specificity, Clarity, Conciseness, Practicality, Contextual Relevance, Cost Consideration, and Crop Science Credibility. Both groups found that refinement raised the average score by 30-33% over Round 0, peaking at Rounds 3-4, after which quality declined, below the starting point for crop scientists. Refinement therefore requires strategic early stopping, which challenges assumptions of monotonic improvement. Criterion-level trajectories indicate a bias-variance trade-off. Early rounds lacked Specificity (bias), whereas excessive iteration eroded Conciseness and raised Cost Consideration through ungrounded economic reasoning (variance). The LLM judges overscored every criterion by 1.4-2.3 points but largely preserved the experts' ranking of rounds (Spearman $\rho$ = 0.58-0.90), so screened LLM judges can flag the quality peak despite unreliable absolute scores. Trustworthy agentic XAI also needs expert-anchored screening of LLM judges and transparent, verifiable refinement records.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2512.21066 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2512.21066v4 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.21066 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 341 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026
Salesforce after Dreamforce: How the CRM giant can grow beyond its own interface
SiliconANGLE · Sep 19, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026