The DOI matches its Crossref record; 245 of the 245 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)—From Theory to Methods and Applications
Open accessAbstract
Intelligent applications supported by Machine Learning have achieved remarkable performance rates for a wide range of tasks in many domains. However, understanding why a trained algorithm makes a particular decision remains problematic. Given the growing interest in the application of learning-based models, some concerns arise in the dealing with sensible environments, which may impact users’ lives. The complex nature of those models’ decision mechanisms makes them the so-called “black boxes,” in which the understanding of the logic behind automated decision-making processes by humans is not trivial. Furthermore, the reasoning that leads a model to provide a specific prediction can be more important than performance metrics, which introduces a trade-off between interpretability and model accuracy. Explaining intelligent computer decisions can be regarded as a way to justify their reliability and establish trust. In this sense, explanations are critical tools that verify predictions to discover errors and biases previously hidden within the models’ complex structures, opening up vast possibilities for more responsible applications. In this review, we provide theoretical foundations of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), clarifying diffuse definitions and identifying research objectives, challenges, and future research lines related to turning opaque machine learning outputs into more transparent decisions. We also present a careful overview of the state-of-the-art explainability approaches, with a particular analysis of methods based on feature importance, such as the well-known LIME and SHAP. As a result, we highlight practical applications of the successful use of XAI.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Ortigossa et al. (2024) emphasize that incorporating practitioner perspectives is vital to ensure that explanations align with real-world needs and cognitive workflows.”
From Explainable AI: enhancing decision-making in the detection of cyber threats (2026) · cites this paper as Ortigossa et al. (2024)
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Jakubův, J., Chvalovský, K., Goertzel, Z., et al. (2023) · DROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · doi:10.4230/lipics.itp.2023.19 · Cited by 76,648
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785 · Cited by 54,569
(2008) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · Cited by 33,051
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization
Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.74 · Cited by 24,513
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
Artificial intelligence: a modern approach
Kumar, D. A., Balasubramanian, S., Byeon, D. H., & Manerkar, P. G. V. (1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1577 · Cited by 22,191
Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks
Zeiler, M. D., & Fergus, R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53 · Cited by 15,839
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- 2023, 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 April 2016 on the General Data Protection Regulation
- 2024, Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD)—Discussion Paper and Request for Feedback
- 10.1016/j.media.2021.102306 · DOI
- 2021, Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence for Health: WHO Guidance
- 2021, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
- 10.3389/fdata.2021.688969 · DOI · Paper page
- 2016, The Neural Network Zoo—The Asimov Institute
- Ghojogh, 2019, The theory behind overfitting, cross validation, regularization, bagging, and boosting: Tutorial, arXiv:1905.12787 · arXiv
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1706.03762 · DOI · Paper page
- Neal, 2018, A modern take on the bias-variance tradeoff in neural networks, arXiv:1810.08591 · arXiv
- Goodfellow, 2016, Deep Learning
- Wang, Benign overfitting in multiclass classification: All roads lead to interpolation, 34, 24164
- 10.2307/2699986 · DOI
- Kumar, Shapley residuals: Quantifying the limits of the Shapley value for explanations, 34, 1
- Vashishth, 2019, Attention interpretability across NLP tasks, arXiv:1909.11218 · arXiv
- Munroe, 2023, XKCD—A Webcomic of Romance, Sarcasm, Math, and Language
- Yousefzadeh, 2019, Interpreting neural networks using flip points, arXiv:1903.08789 · arXiv
- Ba, Do deep nets really need to be deep?, 27, 1
- Kass, 1988, The need for user models in generating expert system explanations, Int. J. Exp. Syst., 1, 1
- Kumar, 2021, Is Shapley explanation for a model unique?, arXiv:2111.11946 · arXiv
- Wojtas, Feature importance ranking for deep learning, 33, 5105
- Alvarez-Melis, 2018, On the robustness of interpretability methods, arXiv:1806.08049 · arXiv
- Mishra, 2021, A survey on the robustness of feature importance and counterfactual explanations, arXiv:2111.00358 · arXiv
- Guidotti, 2018, Local rule-based explanations of black box decision systems, arXiv:1805.10820 · arXiv
- Xenopoulos, GALE: Globally assessing local explanations, 322
- 10.2139/ssrn.3063289 · DOI · Paper page
- Ying, GNNexplainer: Generating explanations for graph neural networks, 32, 1
- Vu, PGM-Explainer: Probabilistic graphical model explanations for graph neural networks, 33, 12225
- Yuan, On explainability of graph neural networks via subgraph explorations, 12241
- Baldassarre, 2019, Explainability techniques for graph convolutional networks, arXiv:1905.13686 · arXiv
- Biderman, Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling, 2397
- Vig, BertViz: A tool for visualizing multihead self-attention in the BERT model, 23, 1
- Sundararajan, Axiomatic attribution for deep networks, 70, 3319
- Hamilton, 2021, Axiomatic explanations for visual search, retrieval, and similarity learning, arXiv:2103.00370 · arXiv
- Smilkov, 2017, SmoothGrad: Removing noise by adding noise, arXiv:1706.03825 · arXiv
- Shrikumar, Learning important features through propagating activation differences, 3145
- Sundararajan, The many Shapley values for model explanation, 9269
- Yousefzadeh, 2019, Investigating decision boundaries of trained neural networks, arXiv:1908.02802 · arXiv
- Lakkaraju, Robust and stable black box explanations, 5628
- Lundberg, 2018, Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles, arXiv:1802.03888 · arXiv
- 10.1007/s11222-021-10057-z · DOI · Paper page
- Barr, The disagreement problem in faithfulness metrics, 1
- Ye, Variable selection via penalized neural network: A drop-out-one loss approach, 5620
- Weerts, 2019, A human-grounded evaluation of SHAP for alert processing, arXiv:1907.03324 · arXiv
- Tsirtsis, Decisions, counterfactual explanations and strategic behavior, 33, 16749
- Alvarez-Melis, 2018, Towards robust interpretability with self-explaining neural networks, arXiv:1806.07538 · arXiv
- Petsiuk, 2018, RISE: Randomized input sampling for explanation of black-box models, arXiv:1806.07421 · arXiv
- Agarwal, 2022, Rethinking stability for attribution-based explanations, arXiv:2203.06877 · arXiv
- Han, Which explanation should I choose? A function approximation perspective to characterizing post hoc explanations, 35, 5256
- Banachewicz, 2022, The Kaggle Book: Data Analysis and Machine Learning for Competitive Data Science
- Alber, 2019, iNNvestigate neural networks!, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 1
- Preece, 2018, Stakeholders in explainable AI, arXiv:1810.00184 · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence: Theoretical Framework
Costa, C. J., Aparicio, M., Aparicio, S., & Aparicio, J. T. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14188236 · Cited by 44
Explainable AI: enhancing decision-making in the detection of cyber threats
Prasad, P. W. C., Sayeed, M. S., Nguyen, D.-M., Hutabarat, D. P., & Mohiuddin, G. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2026.1762332 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Ortigossa, E. S., Gonçalves, T., & Nonato, L. G.
- Affiliations
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of São Paulo (ICMC-USP), São Carlos, Brazil
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 80799-80846
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399449888
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 245
- Citations by year
- 2026: 66 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 18.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brasil (CAPES)–Finance Code 001
- São Paulo Research Foundation
- National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2018/24516-0, 2022/09091-8)
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (307184/2021-8)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- explainable AI, model interpretability, black-box models, automated decision-making, trust in machine learning, feature importance, lime, SHAP, model transparency, algorithmic bias detection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review