aiqbench analysis
This paper addresses a critical vulnerability in the explainable AI (XAI) supply chain, where adversarial actors can manipulate explanations from trusted third parties to conceal model biases. By implementing a Zero-Trust architecture with automated verification pillars for asset integrity and semantic validity, ExplainGuard ensures that post-hoc explanations remain mathematically consistent and faithful to the underlying black-box model. This work is essential for establishing regulatory compliance and genuine trust in high-stakes AI deployments by shifting from implicit trust to continuous "verify-then-trust" protocols.
ExplainGuard: A Zero Trust Framework for Post-Hoc Explanation Integrity Guarantees in Blackbox XAI Models
arXiv:2608.21803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, explainable AI (XAI) methods like SHAP and LIME have become essential for regulatory compliance and trust. However, the current auditing paradigm relies on an implicit "chain of trust" where third-party auditors are assumed to be trusted. Recent research demonstrates that this assumption is flawed and adversarial auditors can manipulate XAI explanations through manipulation attacks such as output shuffling or scaffolding out-of-distribution (OOD) to conceal model biases while maintaining high prediction accuracy aiming for fairwashed explanation. In this paper, we introduce a novel defense framework, ExplainGuard, that leverages a Zero-Trust architecture (ZTA) design to be incorporated within the XAI explanation supply chain and ensures the integrity of the generated explanation. This framework would help us to replace the ambiguous default assumption of "auditor is trustworthy," with a continuous "verify-then-trust" approach. Our design architecture establishes a Policy Decision Point (PDP) that enforces three distinct pillars of verification before any explanation is released to the user: (1) asset integrity via behavioral fingerprint to detect model substitution, (2) semantic validity using axiomatic consistency checks to reject mathematically impossible explanations, and (3) feature faithfulness verification utilizing a ranking stability approach with minimal computational overhead. Finally, we evaluate how ExplainGuard can effectively neutralize state- of-the-art explanation manipulation attacks while transforming the auditing process into a verifiable operation.
Abstract:As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, explainable AI (XAI) methods like SHAP and LIME have become essential for regulatory compliance and trust. However, the current auditing paradigm relies on an implicit "chain of trust" where third-party auditors are assumed to be trusted. Recent research demonstrates that this assumption is flawed and adversarial auditors can manipulate XAI explanations through manipulation attacks such as output shuffling or scaffolding out-of-distribution (OOD) to conceal model biases while maintaining high prediction accuracy aiming for fairwashed explanation. In this paper, we introduce a novel defense framework, ExplainGuard, that leverages a Zero-Trust architecture (ZTA) design to be incorporated within the XAI explanation supply chain and ensures the integrity of the generated explanation. This framework would help us to replace the ambiguous default assumption of "auditor is trustworthy," with a continuous "verify-then-trust" approach. Our design architecture establishes a Policy Decision Point (PDP) that enforces three distinct pillars of verification before any explanation is released to the user: (1) asset integrity via behavioral fingerprint to detect model substitution, (2) semantic validity using axiomatic consistency checks to reject mathematically impossible explanations, and (3) feature faithfulness verification utilizing a ranking stability approach with minimal computational overhead. Finally, we evaluate how ExplainGuard can effectively neutralize state- of-the-art explanation manipulation attacks while transforming the auditing process into a verifiable operation.
9 pages, 2 figures. Accepted at the IEEE Cybersecurity Awareness and Research Symposium 2026 (IEEE CARS 2026)
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.21803 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.21803v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21803 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 337 words
Related coverage
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 18, 2026

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

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026