Making AI Decisions Understandable: A New Approach to Transparency

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

Researchers have developed a novel framework for fine-tuning large language models to generate clear, accurate explanations for complex financial decisions, building trust in AI-driven systems.

Following fine-tuning, the system demonstrates an enhanced capability for both expert explanation and prediction, suggesting improved performance and understanding of underlying principles.
Following fine-tuning, the system demonstrates an enhanced capability for both expert explanation and prediction, suggesting improved performance and understanding of underlying principles.

This work introduces LEXMA, a reinforcement learning approach utilizing multi-objective tuning to adapt explanations for both decision correctness and audience understanding.

Despite the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence for high-stakes decisions, the opacity of model logic hinders trust and accountability. This challenge is addressed in ‘LLMs for Explainable Business Decision-Making: A Reinforcement Learning Fine-Tuning Approach’ through the introduction of LEXMA, a novel framework that fine-tunes large language models using reinforcement learning to generate both accurate and audience-specific explanations. Our approach demonstrates significant improvements in explanation quality and predictive performance in the context of mortgage approval decisions, yielding explanations that are clearer, more actionable, and tailored to expert or consumer audiences. Could this cost-efficient, systematic fine-tuning approach unlock scalable deployment of truly transparent and trustworthy AI systems across diverse business applications?

The Challenge of Opaque AI and the Need for Trustworthy Decisions

The proliferation of artificial intelligence into critical domains – from healthcare diagnostics and loan applications to criminal justice risk assessments – is rapidly outpacing the public’s ability to understand how these systems arrive at their conclusions. This lack of transparency isn’t merely a matter of curiosity; it poses significant challenges to accountability and trust. While AI algorithms can often achieve impressive predictive power, their ‘black box’ nature – where the reasoning behind a decision remains opaque – erodes confidence, particularly when those decisions have profound consequences for individuals and society. Without the ability to scrutinize the logic underpinning AI outputs, it becomes difficult to identify and correct biases, ensure fairness, or even determine whether the system is functioning as intended, creating a pressing need for more interpretable and trustworthy AI solutions.

The increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence in critical domains necessitates more than just accurate outcomes; user trust and equitable application demand transparent reasoning. While an AI might consistently arrive at the correct answer, its decision-making process remains opaque without accompanying explanations, potentially eroding confidence and masking underlying biases. This lack of transparency poses a significant challenge, as individuals are less likely to accept or act upon decisions they don’t understand, particularly when those decisions impact their lives. Providing clear, concise rationales behind AI judgments is therefore paramount, not only for fostering acceptance but also for identifying and mitigating unfair or discriminatory practices embedded within the system itself, ultimately building a foundation for responsible and ethical AI deployment.

A significant hurdle in the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence lies in the frequent trade-off between performance and interpretability; many existing AI systems, while achieving impressive accuracy, operate as “black boxes,” offering little insight into how decisions are reached. This opacity hinders trust and accountability, particularly in sensitive applications. However, recent advancements, such as the LEXMA model, challenge this conventional wisdom. LEXMA demonstrates a compelling ability to simultaneously achieve high accuracy – evidenced by F1 scores of 0.897 when prompted by experts and 0.893 with consumer-level prompts – and provide meaningful explanations for its reasoning. This result suggests that responsible AI deployment doesn’t necessitate sacrificing performance for transparency; instead, models can be engineered to excel in both domains, fostering greater confidence and facilitating wider acceptance.

The decision correctness comparison demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed approach in accurately identifying the optimal action.
The decision correctness comparison demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed approach in accurately identifying the optimal action.

LEXMA: A Framework for Explainable Decision-Making – A Systems-Level Approach

LEXMA’s foundation is the Qwen3-4B large language model, which undergoes a two-stage fine-tuning process. Initially, supervised learning techniques are applied to adapt the pre-trained model to the specific task of explainable decision-making. This is followed by reinforcement learning, used to further refine the model’s outputs, optimizing not only for accurate decisions but also for the quality and coherence of the generated explanations. This combined approach allows LEXMA to leverage the existing knowledge embedded within Qwen3-4B while simultaneously tailoring its behavior to meet the requirements of explainability and decision correctness.

Reflection-Augmented Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is employed to create the initial training dataset for LEXMA. This process involves prompting the base Qwen3-4B model to not only provide an answer to a given input, but also to generate a rationale explaining its reasoning. The model is then prompted to critically reflect on its own answer and rationale, identifying potential errors or areas for improvement, and generating a revised answer and rationale. This self-reflection process yields high-quality target data, consisting of input-answer-rationale triplets, which are then used to train the model through supervised learning, establishing a strong foundation for subsequent refinement stages.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is a reinforcement learning algorithm implemented within LEXMA to simultaneously optimize for both the accuracy of decisions and the quality of the explanations generated. GRPO achieves this by maintaining a group of policies and evaluating them relative to each other, rather than against a fixed target. This relative assessment allows the model to prioritize improvements that enhance both decision correctness – ensuring the chosen action is appropriate – and explanation fidelity, measured by the clarity, relevance, and completeness of the reasoning provided. The algorithm iteratively refines the model’s policy through gradient updates, balancing rewards associated with accurate decisions and high-quality explanations, thereby fostering a system capable of justifiable and reliable outputs.

Low-Rank Adapters (LoRA) provide a parameter-efficient approach to fine-tuning large language models like Qwen3-4B by introducing trainable rank decomposition matrices alongside the existing model weights. This technique significantly reduces the number of trainable parameters – often by over 90% – compared to full fine-tuning, thereby minimizing computational costs associated with storage, training, and inference. LoRA achieves comparable performance to full fine-tuning by learning low-rank updates to the weight matrices, effectively adapting the model to the target task without modifying the pre-trained weights directly. This results in faster training times, reduced memory requirements, and the ability to easily switch between different tasks by loading different LoRA modules.

The LEXMA framework facilitates fine-tuning of language models by integrating λ (lambda) adaptation, experience replay, and knowledge distillation.
The LEXMA framework facilitates fine-tuning of language models by integrating λ (lambda) adaptation, experience replay, and knowledge distillation.

GRPO: Orchestrating Accuracy and Clarity Through Sequential Optimization

GRPO-Step1 prioritizes achieving accurate decisions through parameter updates to the core model while intentionally holding the explanation generation component constant. This initial stage functions to establish a baseline of correctness before addressing explanation quality; by isolating parameter adjustments to the decision-making process and preventing simultaneous changes to the explanation module, researchers can ensure that any observed improvements in decision accuracy are directly attributable to model optimization rather than alterations in how those decisions are justified. This separation is crucial for establishing a reliable foundation upon which subsequent refinement of explanation tone and readability can be built.

Following the initial optimization of decision correctness, GRPO-Step2 focuses on refining the explanatory tone of the model’s output. This stage specifically targets improvements in readability and politeness, ensuring explanations are not only factually accurate but also presented in a user-friendly and respectful manner. Critically, this optimization is performed while freezing the model parameters established in GRPO-Step1, thereby preserving the previously achieved decision accuracy. The goal is to decouple decision-making from explanation style, allowing for targeted refinement of the latter without compromising the correctness of the former.

Prioritizing explanation tone after establishing decision correctness addresses a critical aspect of responsible AI deployment. By first ensuring accurate outcomes and subsequently refining the communicative style of explanations, the system avoids sacrificing performance for politeness. This sequential optimization specifically targets readability and considerate language, which are directly correlated with user trust and acceptance of AI-driven decisions. Users are more likely to accept and act upon recommendations when presented with explanations that are not only logically sound but also respectful and easy to understand, fostering a positive human-AI interaction.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) dataset was utilized for both the training and evaluation of the LEXMA model, providing a dataset grounded in real-world lending scenarios for performance assessment. Evaluations demonstrate that LEXMA achieves a 0.174 improvement in F1 score when assessed with expert-designed prompts, and a 0.167 improvement utilizing consumer-oriented prompts, relative to the baseline Qwen model; these results indicate a statistically significant enhancement in decision quality and predictive performance.

Group Relative Policy Optimization leverages group-based comparisons to improve policy learning and stability.
Group Relative Policy Optimization leverages group-based comparisons to improve policy learning and stability.

Validating LEXMA: Bridging the Gap Between Technical Rigor and User Comprehension

Loan professionals rigorously evaluated the explanations generated by LEXMA, focusing on whether the reasoning accurately reflected the factors contributing to credit risk assessments. This expert evaluation didn’t simply assess if an explanation was produced, but rather its relevance to the specific loan application and the appropriateness of the cited factors. Crucially, the analysis considered explainability – whether the logic presented was readily understandable to a professional in the field, allowing them to validate the AI’s decision-making process. The findings indicated a strong preference for the fine-tuned explanations, with experts favoring them in a substantial 80% of paired reviews, suggesting LEXMA effectively communicates complex risk factors in a manner aligned with industry standards and professional judgment.

A crucial component of validating LEXMA involved directly assessing how potential loan applicants perceive the explanations generated by the system. This consumer evaluation moved beyond technical accuracy to focus on subjective qualities – clarity, trustworthiness, and whether the explanation provided actionable insights for the applicant. Researchers gauged these factors to understand if individuals would find the reasoning behind a lending decision understandable and credible, ultimately impacting their acceptance of, and potentially trust in, AI-driven lending. Findings revealed a significant improvement in explanation clarity, increasing from 3.835 to 4.212, indicating that the fine-tuned explanations successfully enhanced comprehension for those receiving the decisions.

A comprehensive evaluation of LEXMA’s explanatory power hinged on gathering perspectives from both loan professionals and potential applicants, ensuring a nuanced understanding of its effectiveness. This dual approach moved beyond simply assessing technical accuracy; it probed whether explanations were not only logically sound for experts, but also readily understandable and actionable for those unfamiliar with complex lending criteria. By triangulating feedback from these distinct groups, researchers aimed to establish whether LEXMA could bridge the gap between algorithmic decision-making and human comprehension, fostering trust and transparency in automated lending processes. The result was a holistic assessment, confirming LEXMA’s capacity to generate explanations that are simultaneously technically rigorous and user-centric, a crucial combination for responsible AI deployment.

Evaluations of the LEXMA system reveal a significant capacity to build confidence in automated lending. A comparative analysis demonstrated strong preference for LEXMA’s refined explanations, with loan professionals favoring them in 80% of cases and potential applicants in 78%. Importantly, these aren’t merely stylistic improvements; consumer perception of explanation clarity demonstrably increased, shifting from an average score of 3.835 to 4.212 – a substantial gain of 0.377 points. This suggests LEXMA successfully translates complex algorithmic decisions into readily understandable rationales, potentially mitigating concerns about “black box” AI and fostering greater acceptance of data-driven financial services.

Consumer explanations generated by the model demonstrate improved readability and politeness.
Consumer explanations generated by the model demonstrate improved readability and politeness.

The pursuit of explainable AI, as demonstrated by LEXMA, often leads to complexities that belie the initial goal of clarity. The framework’s multi-objective tuning, balancing decision correctness with audience adaptation, highlights a fundamental truth: modularity without context is an illusion of control. Brian Kernighan aptly observes, “Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.” This echoes the need for a holistic approach to LLM fine-tuning; a system prioritizing only accuracy, without considering interpretability and the end user, risks becoming an inscrutable black box, ultimately undermining trust and effective decision-making.

Beyond Explanation: Charting a Course for Trust

The pursuit of explainable AI often fixates on articulation – on showing the reasoning, as if transparency alone were sufficient. This work, in demonstrating a pathway to audience-adapted explanations, acknowledges a more subtle truth: a flawlessly explained error remains an error. LEXMA represents a step towards aligning explanation with not just correctness, but with the cognitive landscape of the receiver. However, it is crucial to recognize that adaptation is not mimicry. A convincing explanation, divorced from underlying validity, is merely a sophisticated illusion-a polished façade concealing structural flaws.

Future work must grapple with the feedback loop. Currently, reinforcement learning optimizes for explanation quality given a decision. The more pressing challenge lies in using explanation to refine the decision-making process itself. One cannot simply replace the brain’s prefrontal cortex without understanding the entire nervous system. A truly robust system will use the act of explanation as a diagnostic – a means of identifying and correcting systemic biases within the core algorithms.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t to make AI understandable, but to build systems inherently worthy of trust. The field should shift its focus from post-hoc rationalization to proactive design – prioritizing clarity, consistency, and corrigibility at the architectural level. Only then will these tools transcend their current limitations and become genuine partners in complex decision-making.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.04208.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2026-01-10 14:15