Explainable AI (XAI): Core Ideas, Techniques, and Solutions
Open accessAbstract
As our dependence on intelligent machines continues to grow, so does the demand for more transparent and interpretable models. In addition, the ability to explain the model generally is now the gold standard for building trust and deployment of artificial intelligence systems in critical domains. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to provide a suite of machine learning techniques that enable human users to understand, appropriately trust, and produce more explainable models. Selecting an appropriate approach for building an XAI-enabled application requires a clear understanding of the core ideas within XAI and the associated programming frameworks. We survey state-of-the-art programming techniques for XAI and present the different phases of XAI in a typical machine learning development process. We classify the various XAI approaches and, using this taxonomy, discuss the key differences among the existing XAI techniques. Furthermore, concrete examples are used to describe these techniques that are mapped to programming frameworks and software toolkits. It is the intention that this survey will help stakeholders in selecting the appropriate approaches, programming frameworks, and software toolkits by comparing them through the lens of the presented taxonomy.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This survey reviews explainable AI concepts, techniques, and software frameworks, organizing them by model transparency, explanation scope, and model specificity. It maps data, model, feature-based, and example-based explanation methods to practical libraries and toolkits, using illustrative examples.
Key findings
- The paper proposes a taxonomy of XAI techniques along white-box vs. black-box, model-specific vs. model-agnostic, and global vs. local dimensions, covering data explainability, model explainability, feature-based methods, example-based methods, toolkits, and distributed learning.
- It reports an illustrative bias example: a 2015 Google Images search for “CEO” returned women 11% of the time, compared with a real-world representation of 27%.
- Neural-symbolic systems are presented as combining neural learning with symbolic reasoning; the paper cites a Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner trained on 10% of the original dataset while remaining explainable.
- It maps techniques such as LIME, SHAP, PDP, ICE, ALE, anchors, counterfactuals, and integrated gradients to frameworks including ELI5, SHAP, PDPbox, Skater, tf-explain, DiCE, Alibi, InterpretML, What-If Tool, and TensorBoard, while noting a trade-off between interpretability and model performance.
Methods
- Design: a comparative survey of state-of-the-art XAI programming techniques, not a primary empirical study; it classifies approaches and compares them through a proposed taxonomy.
- Data or sample: illustrative datasets and examples include Breast Cancer Wisconsin, Heart Disease, Iris (4 features and 3 target classes), Fashion MNIST (70,000 grayscale 28×28 images across 10 classes), and an animal price prediction example.
- Main analysis: qualitative comparison tables mapping XAI techniques to software libraries and toolkits, plus discussion of ML development phases (understanding and explaining) and implementation design considerations.
Limitations
- The paper does not state limitations of the survey itself. It does enumerate limitations of reviewed techniques: PDP assumes feature independence and is realistically limited to about two features; ICE can overcrowd plots and shares correlation concerns; LIME’s local linear approximation may fail with nonlinearity; SHAP can be computationally expensive; global surrogates explain the model rather than the data and may not explain individual predictions; counterfactuals perform worse for multiclass than binary classification.
- Evident from the text: no benchmark, user study, or empirical validation of the taxonomy or toolkit comparisons is reported; the examples are illustrative rather than systematic evaluations.
- Also evident: some tables and sections in the provided text are incomplete or formatting-corrupted, which limits reproducibility of the comparative claims.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 49 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingreasoning
In the heart disease counterfactual example, a recurring theme is reduction of ca from 2 to 0.
“a recurring theme in all counterfactuals is the reduction of ca from 2 to 0.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
XAI is a valuable tool for identifying biases in AI models.
“XAI is a valuable tool that can help to identify biases in AI models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
If AI models are trained on biased historical data, that bias can permeate the entire system and negatively affect decision outcomes.
“However, if these models are trained on biased historical data, then such bias can permeate the entire system negatively impacting the decision outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [33]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Model-specific interpretation tools can be used only for a single algorithm class.
“They can be used only for a single algorithm class.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Model performance metrics such as accuracy do not always reflect true prediction decisions.
“Model performance metrics (e.g., model accuracy) do not always exhibit true prediction decisions [9].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
The widespread use of complex deep learning architectures creates an urgent need to understand their internal workings and outcomes.
“With the frequent utilization of complex Deep Learning (DL) architectures, it requires urgent attention to understand the inner workings and to get insights into the outcomes.This is a core motivation of Explainable AI (XAI) [15].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [15] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisereasoning
The state-of-the-art analysis of existing approaches for building XAI-enabled applications has been investigated only to a limited extent.
“However, the state-of-the-art analysis with respect to existing approaches for building XAI-enabled applications has been investigated to a limited extent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Došilović et al. [13]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Bhatt el al. [7]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Arrieta et al. [4]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisereasoning
Linear models are less capable of representing larger datasets with complex interactions.
“Though simple, these are less capable of representing a larger dataset featuring complex interactions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Explanations can shorten the process of debugging and enhancing AI models by helping recognize sources of model error.
“Explanations can shorten this process by helping with the recognition of model error sources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Combining symbolic and subsymbolic approaches into neuro-symbolic systems shows significant promise by exploiting complementary strengths.
“More recently, a combination of symbolic and subsymbolic approaches based on artificial neural networks, variously known as neuro-symbolic or neural-symbolic (henceforth NS) systems, has shown significant promise in exploiting the complementary strengths of individual approaches [20,28].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisereasoning
The maximum number of features in a partial dependence function is realistically two due to 2D representation or inability to visualize more than 3 dimensions.
“Second, the maximum number of features in a partial dependence function is realistically just two.The underlying reason lies with their 2-dimensional representation (paper or screen), or lack of ability to visualize more than 3 dimensions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Neuro-symbolic systems often perform better than individual approaches.
“Consequently, such systems often perform better; for example, Mao et al. [41] present a Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner, which incorporates symbolic reasoning for better interpretation of visual concepts, and can be trained on less data (10% of the original dataset) while being explainable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [41]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
ICE scores outperform PDP on intuitiveness because each line represents predictions for one instance.
“ICE scores outperforms PDP on intuitiveness as each line stands for the predictions for one instance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisenone given
Compared to asynchronous approach, synchronous training often generates models with better performance.
“But compared to an asynchronous approach, it often generates models that produces better performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Sarker et al. provide a pipeline showing how background knowledge from ontologies can explain classification behaviors of artificial neural networks.
“Sarker et al. [47] provide a useful pipeline to demonstrate how background knowledge made available through ontologies can be used to explain the classification behaviours of artificial neural networks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [47]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
PDP assumes that features for which partial dependence is computed are not correlated with other features.
“The feature(s) for which the partial dependence is computed are assumed to be not correlated with other features.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisenone given
Black-box models cannot be understood or interpreted by themselves.
“Black Box models cannot be understood or interpreted by themselves.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
Distinct from PDP, ICE curves can unveil heterogeneous relationships.
“Distinct from PDP, ICE curves can unveil heterogeneous relationships.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Outputs from subsymbolic approaches linked to background and contextual knowledge can generate user-specific and understandable explanations.
“It therefore follows that outputs from subsymbolic approaches when linked to background and contextual knowledge can generate user-specific and understandable explanations [30].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [30]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
The symbolic element of neuro-symbolic systems commonly consists of knowledge representation and reasoning techniques such as ontologies and knowledge graphs.
“The symbolic element of NS systems commonly consists of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning techniques, such as ontologies and knowledge graphs [28,47].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [28] source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [47]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Including several layers in a neural network makes it difficult for designers to explain how the algorithm reached a particular prediction.
“Inclusion of several layers in a neural network makes it difficult for designers to explain how the algorithm has reached a particular prediction outcome [1].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisereasoning
Communication topology significantly impacts training performance.
“Overall, the communication topology has a very significant impact on the training performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
For low values of Worst Concave points, there are initially fewer chances of a malignant condition.
“Hence we can say that for less values, we can initially predict that there are less chances of malignant condition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisenone given
The black-box nature of subsymbolic approaches is a major hindrance to explainability.
“However, their black-box nature is a major hindrance to explainability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Symbolic AI is natively explainable because it represents knowledge using meaningful symbols understandable by humans and interpretable by machines.
“On the other hand, symbolic AI has long known to be explainable natively [3] since it represents knowledge using meaningful symbols such as language that is understandable by humans as well as interpretable by machines.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [3]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Researchers have used natural language generation approaches for linguistic refinement of explanations.
“Furthermore, researchers have exploited advances in Natural Language Processing, specifically Natural Language Generation approaches, for further linguistic refinement of explanations [16,49].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [16] source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [49]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisenone given
Heterogeneous effects can be uncovered by analyzing ICE curves while ignoring the aggregated line.
“Third, Heterogeneous effects can be uncovered by analysing the individual conditional expectation (outlined in Section 6.3) curves, ignoring the aggregated line.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning
Model parallel depends heavily on model structure because not all models can be split easily.
“Model parallel depends heavily on the model structure as not all can be split up easily.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
ALE Plot handles the inherent limitations of PDP.
“ALE Plot [2,44] handles the inherent limitations of PDP.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [2]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
In the heart disease counterfactual example, ca is the most important feature contributing to having a heart disease.
“ca is the most important feature contributing to having a heart disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisenone given
CEM identifies a minimal set of features adequate to differentiate the instance from the nearest different class.
“Further, it also identifies a minimal set of features that is adequate to differentiate it from the nearest different class.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
When the region is expanded, the linear model may be unable to explain the original model's behavior.
“However, when this region is expanded, there is a possibility that the linear model might be impotent to explain the original model's behaviour.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given
LIME's current implementation uses only linear models to approximate local behavior.
“First and foremost, only linear models are used to approximate local behaviour in the current implementation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Surrogate models derive conclusions about an ML model, not about the data.
“By creating a surrogate model [44,53], we derive conclusions about an ML model; not about the data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [53]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisereasoning
Surrogate models do not work well to understand how a single prediction was made for a given observation.
“Moreover, this method would not work well to understand how a single prediction was made for a given observation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisenone given
PD Plots can produce erroneous results when dataset features are highly correlated.
“In few cases, PD Plots produce erroneous results when the features of the dataset are highly correlated.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Surrogate model interpretation cannot be replicated across all data points.
“In this scenario, how the simple model is interpreted, cannot be replicated across all data points.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Tree SHAP provides interpretable explanations suitable for regression and classification of models with tree structure applied to tabular data.
“The algorithm provides interpretable explanations suitable for regression and classification of models with tree structure applied to tabular data [22,39].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisenone given
If the feature of interest correlates with other features, some points in ICE and PDP lines could be invalid data points.
“Second, ICE curves and PDPs share the same concern: If the interest feature correlates with the other features, then a few points in lines could be invalid data points.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Applying XAI concepts may require choosing between model interpretability and model performance.
“While applying XAI concepts to models, we may have to choose between model interpretability and model performance [26].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [26] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
In the heart disease counterfactual example, the most important factor in changing the condition is to reduce the number of blocked vessels by methods like angioplasty.
“Hence, the most important factor in changing the condition is to reduce the number of blocked vessels by using methods like angioplasty.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisenone given
CEM is the first method that provides explanations of both what should be minimally present and what should be necessarily absent from the instance to maintain the original prediction class.
“It is the first method that provides the explanations of both what should be minimally present and what should be necessarily absent from the instance to be explained in order to maintain the original prediction class.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning
LIME fails to work out-of-the-box on all models.
“However, it fails to work out-of-the-box on all models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Users' explanatory needs vary with the situation.
“Different users need different forms of explanation in different situations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Explanations for a decision or recommendation can take multiple forms, shaped by the audience and the situation.
“A decision or recommendation may have to be explained in many ways, depending on audience requirements and the factors in different scenarios [55].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [55]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Contemporary AI approaches depend on very large datasets to predict and decide.
“Modern AI methods rely on huge volumes of data for making predictions and decisions [55].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [55]
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationnone given
Applying XAI methods can put a user's privacy at risk.
“We have also investigated the implications of espousing XAI techniques in the context of different applications such as livestock mart and healthcare, unveiling the potential of XAI to compromise the privacy of a user.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
When AI cannot explain itself in high-stakes domains, the danger of an incorrect decision can outweigh its accuracy and usefulness.
“If AI cannot explain itself in these domains, then its risk of making a wrong decision may override its accuracy and decision-making efficacy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 118
- May combine two claims. 54
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenIn the cancer dataset example, the Worst Concave points feature initially has an increasing negative influence and then remains neutral.
“In our example,”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenIn the cancer dataset ICE plot, the worst concave points plot is decreasing for lower values below 0.10, which is a factor for higher target variable malignant cases.
“The”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningDuring training of sequential models, only one GPU is utilized at a time because it waits for results from previous or subsequent GPU.
“For example during training of the sequential models, only one GPU is utilized at a time as it has to wait for results from the previous/ subsequent GPU.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataBetween 0.10 and 0.20 the ICE graph decreases, and after 0.21 it is constant with lower y value benign cases.
“Between 0.10 and 0.20 the graph decreases and after 0.21 it is constant (has lower y value -benign cases).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the cancer dataset SHAP example, the predicted value was -3.89 and the base value was 1.837.
“We predicted -3.89, whereas the basevalue is 1.837.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenIn the shirt example, positive and negative attributions are equal in number.
“The second example (bottom part of Figure 20) is an image of a shirt where there is an equal number of positive and negative attributions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the Iris ALE example, greater petal length increases chance of Virginica species, and lesser petal length increases chance of Setosa species.
“It can also be observed that the more the petal length is, the more is the chance of the flower being from the Virginica species and the less the petal length is, the more is the chance of it being from the Setosa species.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenIn the shirt example, pixels around the collar and sleeves are the largest positive attributions.
“The pixels around the collar and the sleeves are the biggest positive attributions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningIn the heart disease CEM example, the original prediction was 0 and was altered to 1 after applying CEM with pertinent negative.
“The original prediction was 0 which is altered to 1 after applying CEM with pertinent negative.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataIn the cancer dataset SHAP example, mean concave points had a high effect 0.04079 increasing the prediction.
“Though the mean concave points value has high effect (0.04079) increasing the prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataIn the Iris dataset ALE example, the three lines for Petal Length overlap at the 3.8 cm mark.
“Looking at the plot for Petal Length (bottom right plot), it can be observed that the three lines overlap at the 3.8 cm mark.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningIn the shoe example, negative attributions are negligible.
“On the other hand, the negative attributions are negligible for this particular instance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningIn the shoe example, the lining, collar, and back of the shoe are the main pixels influencing the model's decision.
“The lining, collar and back part of the shoe are the main pixels that influence the decision of the model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the heart disease global SHAP example, ca is the feature that influences prediction the most, followed by thal.
“Thus, ca is the feature that influences prediction the most; followed by thal and so on.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the heart disease local SHAP example, the highest influence for increasing the prediction value is ca, and for decreasing it is sex.
“Here, the highest influence is of ca for increasing the prediction value and of sex for decreasing the value.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the Fashion MNIST shoe example, the attribution map contains both positive and negative attributions, with green marking positive and purple marking negative.
“The first example (top part of Figure 20) is is an image of a shoe.The attributions section shows a melange of positive and negative attributions together.It can be observed from the bar on the right side that green signifies positive attributions and purple signifies negative attributions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningIn the heart disease counterfactual example, reducing cholesterol leads to a decrease in heart disease intensity.
“the second counterfactual on the list indicates that reduction of cholesterol leads to a decrease in the intensity of heart disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataIn the cancer dataset SHAP example, the biggest impact came from worst area 989.5.
“The biggest impact comes from worst area i.e. 989.5.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningIn the heart disease counterfactual example, sex, age, and chest-pain type cannot be changed and must be fixed in each counterfactual.
“The sex, age or the type of chest-pain (field cp) of a person suffering from a heart disease cannot be changed.Therefore, these features have to be fixed in each of the counterfactuals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningXAI models can present the reasoning behind a result, which helps identify the source of discrimination and address it.
“Unlike black box models, XAI models can present the reasoning behind the result, which can help identify the source for the discrimination and address it accordingly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenAn ML pipeline that provides accurate predictions lacks the phases of understanding and explaining.
“While an ML pipeline can provide accurate predictions, it lacks two important phases: understanding and explaining.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenFeature importance shows the comparative significance of input features for a specific model prediction.
“For example, feature importance (discussed in Section 6.1), a common type of explanation, shows the comparative significance of input features for any specific model prediction(s).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenThe architecture of black-box models is hard to decipher, and it is unclear how important any feature is or how it interacts with other features.
“The architecture of these models is hard to decipher, as it is not clear how important a role any given feature plays in the prediction model or how it interacts with other features.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGlobal interpretation methods analyze a model's overall behavior and assign importance to variables, their dependencies, and interactions.
“Global interpretation methods involve an overall analysis of a model and its general behavior.The process of defining variables, their dependency, and interactions goes alongside with the process of assigning importance to these components.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningLinear models are white-box models because their mechanism is transparent and simple.
“A linear model is a white-box model because its mechanism is transparent and simple (as opposed to a black-box whose mechanism is not readily understood).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
PremisereasoningIn a fully connected neural network, tracing output features to a specific causative input feature remains a challenge.
“For example, in a fully connected neural network, tracing the output features rendered by a model against a specific causative input feature remains a challenge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningHigher accuracy requires more complex and expressive models.
“Therefore, for higher accuracy, we require more complex and expressive models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenBlack-box models include neural networks and complex ensembles such as gradient boosting models based on decision trees.
“Black box models such as neural networks or complex ensembles of much lower complexity (like a gradient boosting model based on decision-trees).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenDatasets often contain inherent discrimination.
“Datasets often contain inherent discrimination.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationAutoML turns the entire data pipeline into a black box, preventing users from engineering or selecting features or seeing the model's decision-making process.
“AutoML has made explainability more important, as the entire data pipeline is convered into a black box (as opposed to just the machine learning model) [27].When using AutoML, a user does not have the ability to engineer or select features, or has visibility into a model's decision-making process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [27]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationICE curves are far more intuitive to understand than PDP.
“They are far more intuitive to understand when compared to PDP [44].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSymbols are closer to how humans understand than vectors or numerical encodings used in neural networks.
“Symbols are closer to how humans understand, compared to vectors or numerical encodings as seen in neural networks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenLogistic regression is one of the most interpretable linear machine learning models for certain classes of events.
“Similarly, Logistic Regression is one of the most interpretable linear ML models for certain class of events.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationcitationDeep understanding of cognitive science will benefit the field of neuro-symbolic AI, particularly for integrating neuro-symbolic approaches and designing explainable systems closer to human understanding.
“In fact, deep understanding of cognitive science will most certainly benefit the field of NS-AI particularly for the integration of neuro-symbolic approaches [6] to develop a mature and robust integrated model and consequently, for the design of explainable systems that are closer to how humans understand, think, and communicate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenGeneralized additive models offer a trade-off between simple interpretable models like logistic regression and more complex models like neural networks.
“GAMs offer a trade-off between simple, interpretable models such as logistic regression and more complex, sophisticated models such as neural networks, which (usually) offer better accuracy and predictive power as compared to simple models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationLocal interpretation methods analyze individual predictions and decisions to clarify why the model suggested a particular course of action.
“Involves an analysis of individual predictions and decisions made by the model, to clarify why the model suggested a particular course of action.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [44]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenTree interpreter decomposes every prediction result into a sum of feature contributions and bias, enabling better interpretation of how a feature led to a prediction.
“It decomposes every prediction result to a sum of feature contributions and bias.This enables a better interpretation of how a feature led to a particular prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenToo many ICE curves can overcrowd a plot and prevent assessment.
“First, too many ICE curves could lead to an overcrowded plot without the ability to assess anything.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenNeural networks usually offer better accuracy and predictive power than simple models.
“which (usually) offer better accuracy and predictive power as compared to simple models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenLinear model coefficients can be unstable when features are multicollinear.
“Furthermore, the linear model coefficients could be unstable in case of multi-collinearlity (multiple correlated features).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenPost-hoc explanation schemes are used for single-layer and multilayer neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and recurrent neural networks.
“These post-hoc explanation schemes are being used for both single/ multilayer Neural Networks, Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenThe InTrees package converts a complex tree ensemble into a rule-based learner called STEL.
“The 'InTrees' (Interpretable Trees) package coverts a complex tree ensemble into a rule based learner known as STEL.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
PremisecitationReasoning is critically needed to understand the why and how behind a particular outcome.
“However, to achieve this explainability, the authors argue the critical need for reasoning to understand the why and how behind a particular outcome [14].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningSynchronous training usually takes more time because it waits for idle nodes.
“Synchronous training usually takes more time as it requires waiting for idle nodes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningNeural systems excel at learning, while symbolic approaches can explain what has been learned.
“Thus, where neural systems excel at learning, symbolic approaches can be employed to explain what has been learnt.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationRing-allreduce usually achieves better scalability due to efficient network bandwidth use.
“The ring-allreduce [10] usually achieves better scaleability due to efficient use of network bandwidth.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningHistograms are much less flexible than kernel density estimates for data visualization.
“Although Data Visualization Plots give a good data explainability, plots such as Histogram are much less flexible than KDEs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenPermutation importance is considered computationally expensive.
“It is considered as a computationally expensive technique.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenDimensionality reduction techniques such as PCA, ICA, Isomap, t-SNE, LDA, UMAP, LDS, LLE, and autoencoders can improve visualization and interpretation.
“Dimensionality reduction techniques such as PCA, ICA, Isometric Mapping (Isomap), t-sne, LDA, UMAP, LDS, LLE, and Autoencoders can be used to improve visualisation and interpretation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningTraining large models and data volumes requires distributing ML workload across multiple machines and aggregating results because of single-machine limits in computing power and storage.
“To train for large models and data volumes, the limitation of the computing power and storage of a single machine calls for distributing the machine learning workload across multiple machines and aggregating the results for a coherent model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningTree ensembles provide explainability similar to decision trees while offering stronger learning during training.
“Tee ensembles can be understood as a bunch of decision trees whose results are combined thus providing the support for explainability same as decision trees but with the benefit of stringer learning during training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenSmall ML models lack representation capability for complex data patterns.
“Small ML models lack the representation capability for expressing complex data patterns.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSymbolic systems lack scalability and cannot handle noisy data, which has limited their use.
“However, the lack of scaleability of symbolic systems and their inability to handle noisy data has limited their use.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenGAMs are interpretable but do not fit every type of data.
“Although GAMs are interpretable, it comes at an cost of not fitting every type of data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningLinear model coefficients do not guarantee explainability in practice when the input is high-dimensional; explainability may require limiting the number of input features through regularization.
“However, some techniques viz.linear model coefficients do no ensure explainability in practice due to the reason that implementing them on a high dimensional input may not be explainable.It could only be possible if the number of input features are limited using regularization.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenA single decision tree may not yield optimal performance, so several decision trees can be combined to get an optimal performance model.
“Since a single decision tree may not be enough to yield optimal performance, several decision trees can be combined together to get an optimal performance model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenBlack-box models include tree ensembles, support vector machines, and various neural networks.
“Black Box models include Tree Ensembles, Support Vector Machines (SVM) as well as a variety of neural networks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSubsymbolic approaches based on artificial neural networks are growing in popularity because they are robust against noisy data and can perform complex tasks not otherwise manually possible.
“Subsymbolic approaches, such as those based on artificial neural networks, are growing in popularity due to their robustness against noisy data and ability to perform complex tasks not otherwise manually possible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenAsynchronous SGD provides better model generalization capability and is fast in training.
“However, it provides better model generalization capability and is fast in training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningOntologies can perform deductive reasoning to derive new, deeper knowledge from existing knowledge in a traceable manner.
“Ontologies can thus perform deductive reasoning to derive new, deeper knowledge from existing knowledge in a traceable manner.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn asynchronous SGD, delayed gradients create noise in the global model and delay convergence speed.
“In Asynchronous SGD, the delayed gradients create noise in the global model and delay the convergence speed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [11]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningGAMs are explainable because feature value distributions can be plotted in 2D for domain experts to interpret.
“GAMs are explainable in the sense that the distributions of values for any given feature function can be plotted in 2D, which a domain expert can easily interpret.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningParameter server can suffer from network congestion at the server side due to model aggregation.
“PS can suffer from network congestion at the server side due to the model aggregation approach.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenOverfitting is unlikely in generalized additive models because prediction functions are regularized.
“Over fitting is unlikely in GAMs due to the regularization of prediction functions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisereasoningCombining multiple decision trees increases model complexity and makes model behavior harder to understand.
“However, the model's complexity increases due to multiple decision trees.As a result, it becomes a lot more difficult to understand model behaviour.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenGAMs are more flexible than regression.
“A generalized additive model (GAM) is much more flexible than Regression.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenDecision tree visualizations are intuitive and reveal all decisions during model training, supporting interpretability and explainability.
“Decision Tree visualizations are intuituve and reveal all decisions during model training, thus supporting interpretability and explainability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenParameter aggregation between worker nodes impacts loss in model training quality and convergence speed.
“Parameter aggregation between worker nodes impacts several system metrics: loss in model training quality, convergence speed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationOntologies enable reasoning for both deducing new knowledge and causal inference to understand cause and effect behind outcomes.
“Ontologies enable reasoning not only to deduce new knowledge and facts but also for causal inference to understand the cause and effect behind the outcomes, such as through transitivity [23].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [23]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationParameter server is the most prominent approach for centralized aggregation of data parallel training.
“Parameter sever (PS) [37] is most prominent for centralized aggregation of data parallel training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [37]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSupport vector machines work well in high-dimensional spaces and when the number of dimensions exceeds the number of samples.
“It works well in high dimensional spaces and scenarios where number of dimensions are greater than the number of samples.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationMao et al.'s Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner can be trained on 10% of the original dataset while being explainable.
“Mao et al. [41] present a Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner, which incorporates symbolic reasoning for better interpretation of visual concepts, and can be trained on less data (10% of the original dataset) while being explainable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [41]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenKernel density estimates provide estimates of an unknown density function and allow adjustment of bandwidth and kernel shape and size.
“The latter give estimates of an unknown density function wherein we can not only differ the bandwidth, but also implement kernels with various shapes and sizes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationDiCE identifies the most influential feature for a prediction and recommends feature modifications needed to change the result.
“DiCE not only provides the most influential feature for the prediction but also recommends the feature modifications needed for the result.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [45]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenICE unravels heterogeneous effects but makes it difficult to find the average.
“ICE unravels the heterogeneous effects but makes it difficult to find the average.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningCompared to Shapley values, Kernel SHAP provides computational efficiency and accurate approximation in higher dimensions.
“Compared to Shapley values, Kernel SHAP provides computational efficiency and accurate approximation in higher dimensions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenCounterfactuals guided by prototypes is more advanced and accurate than counterfactual, and works on black-box models.
“Counterfactuals guided by prototypes is more advanced and accurate, and works on black-box models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe linear approximation assumption in LIME is correct to some extent when only a small region around the data sample is considered.
“This assumption is correct to some extent when only a small region around the data sample is considered.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIn the shoe example, the shoe has more positive than negative attributes because it is unique among clothing items.
“The shoe is unique compared to other clothing items, and hence, it has a lot more positive attributes than negatives.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDiCE allows users to specify feature weights to indicate relative difficulty of modifying features, with higher weight meaning more difficult to modify.
“DiCE allows input of relative difficulty by specifying 'feature weights'.A higher feature weight means that the feature is difficult to modify than that of others.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [45]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationSHAP values provide local transparency and interpretability, allowing each observation to have its own SHAP value set.
“An important advantage of SHAP value lies in its transparency and interpretability locally, which implies that each observation can have its own SHAP value set.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [40]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenCrunching large background data still incurs high computational costs.
“However, crunching large background data still incurs high computational costs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningALE Plots are preferred over PD Plots because they produce optimal results despite correlation between features and are less computationally expensive.
“They are preferred over PD Plots, as they produce optimal results in spite of correlation between features and are less computationally expensive.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenShapley Value provides local and global interpretation including explanation with theoretical inferences.
“Shapley Value provides local and global interpretation including explanation with theoretical inferences.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenIn the heart disease global SHAP example, high thalach indicates no heart disease.
“However, it is the opposite for some features: High thalach will indicate no heart disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenAn interpretable surrogate model may be close for one subset but broadly disparate for a different subset of a dataset.
“It is possible that an interpretable model is close for one subset but broadly disparate for a different subset of a dataset.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenAnchors support model-agnostic approaches for classification models of text, image or tabular data.
“Anchors support model-agnostic approaches for classification models of text, image or tabular data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisereasoningKernel SHAP method applies a fast kernel approximation and may resolve the computational expense of Shapley Value.
“This problem may be resolved with the recently developed kernel SHAP method which applies a fast kernel approximation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAlibi contains a wide range of algorithms, most focusing on black-box models and local interpretation.
“The library consists of a wide range of algorithms, most of which focus on black box models and local interpretation i.e. interpretation for the prediction to be explained at a particular instance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [34]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningIn the heart disease CEM example, changes in features cp, ca, and thal should be eliminated to retain the original prediction as 0 because they are responsible for flipping the prediction class.
“Hence, changes in these features should necessarily be eliminated to retain the original prediction as 0 as they are responsible for flipping the prediction class.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenPN works similarly to Counterfactuals.
“PN works similarly to Counterfactuals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenLIME only covers a local region and may not be generalisable.
“However, LIME only covers a local region and may not be generalisable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenLIME is an optimal alternative for few models such as kNN in terms of computation cost.
“LIME is an optimal alternative for few models such as knn model in terms of computation cost.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDiCE provides what-if explanations for model predictions.
“DiCE [45] is a package that gives the “what-if” explanations for the model prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [45]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenIt is difficult to find the average in ICE plots.
“Third, it is difficult to find the average in ICE plots.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDiCE implements counterfactual explanations that include perturbed features leading to the required result.
“It implements counterfactual explanations that include perturbed features which in turn will lead to the required result.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [45]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenUsing CEM, the accuracy of an ML model can be enhanced by looking at mis-classified instances and using CEM explanations.
“Using CEM, the accuracy of the ML model can be enhanced by looking at cases of mis-classified instances and using the explanations provided by CEM.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAlibi comprises different types of explainers depending on the data.
“This library comprises different types of explainers depending on data we are dealing with.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [34]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenCounterfactual explainer methods work on black box models and are best suited for binary datasets.
“Counterfactual explainer method work on black box models and best suited for binary datasets.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenPP works similarly to Anchors.
“PP works similarly to Anchors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenIntegrated Gradients is a local explanation method that explains individual predictions.
“It is a local method that helps explain each individual prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSHAP is computationally expensive on certain models such as KNN but runs fast on trees such as gradient boosted trees from XGBoost.
“SHAP is computationally expensive on certain models such as KNN but runs fast on trees, such as gradient boosted trees from XGBoost.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenIt is computationally expensive to calculate Shapley Value compared to LIME.
“However, it is computationally expensive to calculate the Shapley Value in comparison to LIME.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningCounterfactuals guided by prototypes is much faster than counterfactual because prototypes speed up the search process by directing counterfactual to the prototype of a particular class.
“It is much faster than counterfactual, as prototype speed up the search process significantly by directing counterfactual to the prototype of a particular class.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningFor datasets requiring complicated, non-interpretable models, there would be non-linearity at local regions, making LIME unable to deploy in such settings.
“There would be non-linearity at local regions for datasets requiring complicated, non-interpretable models.The inability to deploy LIME in such settings is a major pitfall.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSHAP provides fast, reliable evaluations and incorporates TreeExplainer, which optimally estimates Shapley Values through XGBoost.
“Contrary, SHAP provides fast, reliable evaluations and incorporates TreeExplainer, which optimally estimates Shapley Values through XGBoost.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataAt 3.8 cm Petal Length, the effects on each class are the same.
“From that, it can be concluded that the effects of the Petal Length on each class will be one and the same at 3.8 cm.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenLIME cannot handle XGBoost's requirement to use xgb.DMatrix() on input data.
“For example, LIME cannot handle the requirement of XGBoost to use xgb.DMatrix() on the input data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenIf the same perturbation space is allotted to both LIME and Anchors, Anchors will build a more valid region of instances that better describe the model's behaviour.
“If the same perturbation space is allotted to both LIME and Anchors, the latter will build a more valid region of instances which better describe the model's behaviour.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAlibi is an open-source Python library for ML-based model inspection and interpretation.
“Alibi [34] is an open source Python library which aims at ML-based model inspection and interpretation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [34]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe Integrated Gradients technique, also called Path-Integrated Gradients, assigns an importance score to each input feature by using gradients of the model output.
“Integrated Gradients, also known as Path-Integrated Gradients is an XAI technique that assign an importance value to each feature of the input using the gradients of the model output [57].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [57]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningAll three methods PDP, ICE, and Feature Importance consider features as independent entities, so if features are correlated, they create unlikely data points.
“In addition, all three methods consider the features as independent entity.Hence, if features are correlated, it will result in the creation of unlikely data points.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisenone givenPDP demonstrates global effects while concealing heterogeneous effects.
“PDP demonstrates global effects, concealing the heterogeneous effects.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningIn the heart disease global SHAP example, higher values of ca indicate more chances of heart disease.
“High value of ca indicates more chances of Heart Disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIn the shirt example, the middle of the shirt can be mistaken for jeans or trousers, and this ambiguity makes those pixels negative attributions for the prediction.
“However, the middle portion of the shirt can be mistaken to be a part of a pair of jeans or trousers.Therefore, due to this ambiguity, they are the negative attributions for the prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningA model produces a correct prediction when its positive attributions exceed its negative ones.
“All in all, we can affirm that when the positive attributions outweigh the negative attributions, the model makes the correct prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenCounterfactual methods can be applied to classification with more than 3 target values, but performance degrades compared to binary classification.
“They can also be applied on classification with more than 3 target values, but the performance degrades as compared to binary classification.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenTraditional variable importance algorithms provide results for the entire population, ignoring individual scenarios.
“The traditional variable importance algorithms provide results for the entire population ignoring individual scenarios.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningIntegrated Gradients provides feature attributions that can be positive or negative.
“This method provides the specific attributions of the feature inputs that are positive attributions and negative attributions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenPositive attributions are feature contributions that push a model toward a decision, while negative attributions push it away from a decision.
“Positive attributions are attributions that contribute or influence a model to make the decision whereas negative attributions are attributions that contribute or influence a model against a decision made.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningHow much explanation is needed varies across experiments.
“The extent of requisite explainability differs from one experiment to another.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningKnowing how much data an AI system uses and where it came from supports explainability.
“Being aware of data quantity and its provenance in AI systems ensures system explainability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenXAI methods come in many forms, and each has advantages and disadvantages.
“XAI technologies utilize various schemes and approaches, each with its own pros and cons.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenA customer receiving shopping recommendations may not seek reasons for the suggested items.
“In the example of shopping recommendations, the customer may not want an explanation for the items recommended.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningFigure 21's lower-left area shows the most successful AI applications, with low human involvement and low potential cost.
“The bottom left quadrant represents the most successful AI use cases, where both potential cost and human participation are low.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenModels such as simple linear or tree-based ones can readily account for their decisions, yielding a particular insight or prediction.
“For example, few simple linear or tree-based models can easily explain the model decisions that lead to a specific insight or prediction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenDesigning a system frequently involves balancing requirements that conflict.
“System design often needs to balance competing requirements.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenThe survey also considered distributed AI, where data are stored across several nodes in practical AI deployments, along with privacy, transparency, and fairness.
“We have explored our discussions beyond what has been gone so far in the XAI domain toward the idea of distributed AI, a paradigm that imposes storage of data on multiple nodes when implementing AI models in practice, including privacy, transparency, and fairness.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningThe upper-right area of Figure 21 includes decisions like medical diagnosis and credit risk profiling, whose costs rise sharply.
“Decisions listed in the top right quadrant, e.g. for credit risk profiling, medical diagnosis etc, represent exponentially increasing cost.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningWhen designing an AI system, explainability is not always the main concern.
“Explainability may not always be the priority while designing an AI system.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningEnsemble and deep learning models, though often highly accurate, are treated as black boxes because their decisions are hard to evaluate.
“Conversely, complex ensemble and deep learning models often produce superlative performance, but they are considered as black-box models as it is very difficult to assess model's decisions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenIn Figure 21's upper-left area, mistakes can have catastrophic outcomes.
“The top left quadrant features decisions where any errors can result in disastrous consequences.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenAI systems in healthcare and finance rely on private data to decide and recommend.
“For instance, in healthcare and finance applications, AI systems are privy to confidential data for making decisions and offering recommendations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
PremisereasoningWhen machine learning informs critical decisions, explanation becomes essential.
“On the other hand, in situations where ML model is utilized for making crucial decisions, explainability is paramount.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
PremisereasoningWhen XAI methods are used in different applications, interpretability, accuracy, and privacy vary.
“These methods when used in different applications, the interpretability, accuracy, and privacy varies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Outline assigns software toolkits to the wrong section
MinorThe outline says the toolkits are covered in Section 9, whereas Section 9 is about design considerations; software toolkits are in Section 8.
“Open source and commercially available toolkits for building XAI models are covered in Section 9”
“## 9 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING XAI”
Tree ensembles are classified as both white-box and black-box
MinorTable 3 lists tree ensembles among white-box models, but Section 5.2 explicitly includes them among black-box models.
“White-Box Models Linear Model (Section 5.1) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ Decision Tree (Section 5.1) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) (Section 5.1) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ Tree Ensembles (Section 5.1) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗”
“Black Box models include Tree Ensembles, Support Vector Machines (SVM) as well as a variety of neural networks.”
Table 5 is described as covering the wrong type of explainability
MinorSection 5.5 says Table 5 concerns data explainability, but the table caption says it concerns model explainability.
“Table 5 describes frameworks, which can be used to implement data explainability techniques.”
“Table 5 . Programming frameworks for Model Explainability.”
Outline misnumbers the data and model explainability sections
MinorThe outline places data explainability in Section 5 and model explainability in Section 6, but their headings are Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
“Sections 5 and 6 cover the major pillars of XAI system, i.e., Data Explainability and Model Explainability respectively.”
“## 4 DATA EXPLAINABILITY”
Intrinsic and post-hoc labels are reversed
MinorSection 3.1 calls black-box models intrinsic and white-box models post-hoc. The conclusion instead describes white-box models as intrinsically explainable relative to black-box models.
“The black-box model is also termed as intrinsic as it is achieved by limiting the complexity of an AI model, while a white-box model is also termed as post-hoc as it is applied on the model after training.”
“white box models, such as linear models, decision trees and generalized additive models which are ML-based models.The techniques that are intrinsically more explainable and interpretable as compared to their black box counterparts”
Table 8 conflicts with the stated Skater capabilities
MinorTable 8 marks Skater as unable to perform feature importance and partial dependence plots, but the Skater description expressly says it can perform both.
“Keras, Tensorflow, PyTorch Lime Shap Skater eli5 pdpbox XAI Feature Importance (Section 6.1) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ Partial Dependence Plots (Section 6.2) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗”
“With Skater, one can perform global interpretations using partial dependence plots and feature importance techniques.”
Low concave-point values receive opposite interpretations
MinorThe PDP discussion associates lower values of the same feature with a lower chance of malignancy, while the ICE discussion associates them with a higher malignant target value.
“Hence we can say that for less values, we can initially predict that there are less chances of malignant condition.”
“The "worst concave points" plot is decreasing in nature (i.e., Lower value(< 0.10)) of concave points.It is a factor for higher value of target variable (malignant cases).”
Outline gives the wrong conclusion section
MinorThe outline places the conclusion in Section 11, but the conclusion is headed Section 10.
“The paper is concluded in Section 11.”
“## 10 CONCLUSION”
Table 6 is assigned two different subjects
MinorThe text identifies Table 6 as a feature-importance example, while its caption identifies it as a table of distributed-learning frameworks.
“Table 6 presents a feature importance example of a cancer dataset.”
“Table 6.Distributed Learning frameworks”
Cites
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Advances in neural information processing systems 7
(1996) · Computers & Mathematics with Applications · doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(96)90463-0 · Cited by 14,759 · see citing works
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29
Teymur, O., Zygalakis, K., & Calderhead, B. (2016) · Cited by 13,881 · see citing works
From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., & Lee, S.-I. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 · Cited by 10,551 · see citing works
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Axiomatic attribution for deep networks
Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., & Yan, Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.01365 · Cited by 4,087 · see citing works
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121 · see citing works
Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences
Shrikumar, A., Greenside, P., & Kundaje, A. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.02685 · Cited by 2,761 · see citing works
Adversarial machine learning at scale
Kurakin, A., Goodfellow, I., & Bengio, S. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01236 · Cited by 2,325 · see citing works
Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 · Cited by 2,162 · cited 1× · see citing works
“LIME [46] is different from global surrogate in the sense that LIME does not try to explain the whole model.”
BackgroundGoldstein, A., Kapelner, A., Bleich, J., & Pitkin, E. (2015) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.2014.907095 · Cited by 1,861 · see citing works
Machine Learning Interpretability: A Survey on Methods and Metrics
Carvalho, D. V., Pereira, E. M., & Cardoso, J. S. (2019) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics8080832 · Cited by 1,842 · see citing works
SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise
Smilkov, D., Thorat, N., Kim, B., Viégas, F., & Wattenberg, M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03825 · Cited by 1,467 · see citing works
DARPA's Explainable Artificial Intelligence Program
Gunning, D., & Aha, D. W. (2019) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850 · Cited by 1,360 · see citing works
Predictive learning via rule ensembles
Friedman, J. H., & Popescu, B. E. (2008) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/07-aoas148 · Cited by 1,315 · see citing works
Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations
Mothilal, R. K., Sharma, A., & Tan, C. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372850 · Cited by 1,233 · see citing works
pdp: An R Package for Constructing Partial Dependence Plots
Brandon, M. G. (2017) · The R Journal · doi:10.32614/rj-2017-016 · Cited by 1,198 · see citing works
GPipe: Efficient Training of Giant Neural Networks using Pipeline Parallelism
Huang, Y., Cheng, Y., Bapna, A., Firat, O., Chen, M. X., Chen, D., Lee, H., Ngiam, J., Le, Q. V., Wu, Y., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.06965 · Cited by 1,180 · see citing works
Explainable artificial intelligence: A survey
Dosilovic, F. K., Brcic, M., & Hlupic, N. (2018) · 2018 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO) · doi:10.23919/mipro.2018.8400040 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
Designing Theory-Driven User-Centric Explainable AI
Wang, D., Yang, Q., Abdul, A., & Lim, B. Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300831 · Cited by 906 · see citing works
Horovod: fast and easy distributed deep learning in TensorFlowPreprint
Sergeev, A., & Balso, M. D. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.05799 · Cited by 867 · see citing works
Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectives
Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000066 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Explainable Recommendation a survey and new perspectives
Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020) · Cited by 689 · see citing works
What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?
Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.09923 · Cited by 636 · see citing works
Explainable machine learning in deployment
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375624 · Cited by 633 · see citing works
Mao, J., Gan, C., Kohli, P., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Wu, J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.12584 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Petuum: A New Platform for Distributed Machine Learning on Big Data
Xing, E. P., Ho, Q., Dai, W., Kim, J. K., Wei, J., Lee, S., Zheng, X., Xie, P., Kumar, A., & Yu, Y. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2015.2472014 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Shapley additive explanations for NO2 forecasting
Vega García, M., & Aznarte, J. L. (2020) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.101039 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Towards explainable deep neural networks (xDNN)
Angelov, P., & Soares, E. (2020) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2020.07.010 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Visualizing the Effects of Predictor Variables in Black Box Supervised Learning ModelsPreprint
Apley, D. W., & Zhu, J. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.08468 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: A Survey and InterpretationPreprint
Besold, T. R., Garcez, A. D., Bader, S., Bowman, H., Domingos, P., Hitzler, P., Kühnberger, K., Lamb, L. C., Lowd, D., Lima, P. M. V., et al. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.03902 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectives
Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020) · doi:10.1561/9781680836592 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Gade, K., Geyik, S. C., Kenthapadi, K., Mithal, V., & Taly, A. (2019) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3332281 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Fisher, A., Rudin, C. D., & Dominici, F. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 118 · see citing works
DL-Learner—A framework for inductive learning on the Semantic Web
Bühmann, L., Lehmann, J., & Westphal, P. (2016) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2016.06.001 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Futia, G., & Vetrò, A. (2020) · Information · doi:10.3390/info11020122 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Neural-symbolic integration and the Semantic Web
Hitzler, P., Bianchi, F., Ebrahimi, M., & Sarker, M. K. (2020) · Semantic Web · doi:10.3233/sw-190368 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Arya, V., Bellamy, R., Chen, P., Dhurandhar, A., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Liao, Q. V., Luss, R., Mojsilović, A., et al. (2020) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375667 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Three problems in computer science
Valiant, L. G. (2003) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/602382.602410 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Interpretable machine learning
Molnar, C. (2020) · doi:10.58248/pn633 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Steinruecken, C., Smith, E., Janz, D., Lloyd, J. R., & Zoubin Ghahramani, A. (2019) · The Springer series on challenges in machine learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05318-5_9 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Semantic Web Technologies for Explainable Machine Learning Models: A Literature Review.
Seeliger, A., Pfaff, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019) · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Current TrendsPreprint
Sarker, M. K., Zhou, L., Eberhart, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.05330 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
SPARQL Query Verbalization for Explaining Semantic Search Engine Queries
Ell, B., Harth, A., & Simperl, E. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_29 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
We Will Show Them! Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay, Volume One
Artemov, S. N., Barringer, H., Garcez, A. D., et al. (2005) · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
7 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- David Beckett, Tim Berners-Lee, Eric Prud’hommeaux, and Gavin Carothers. 2014. RDF 1.1 Turtle. World Wide Web Consortium 2014 (2014), 18–31.
- Jeffrey Dean Greg S. Corrado Rajat Monga Kai Chen Matthieu Devin Quoc V. Le Mark Z. Mao et al. 2012. Large scale distributed deep networks. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’12) . 1223–1231.
- CEUR Workshop Proceedings Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Comprehensibility and Explanation in AI and ML 2017 co-located with 16th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2017) Bari Italy November 16th and 17th 2017 2071 Derek Doran Sarah Schulz Tarek R. Besold Tarek R. Besold Oliver Kutz What does explainable AI really mean? A new conceptualization of perspectives 2017
- Xin He Kaiyong Zhao and Xiaowen Chu. 2019. AutoML: A survey of the state-of-the-art. arxiv:1908.00709 [cs.LG]. · arXiv
- Pascal Hitzler, Markus Krötzsch, Bijan Parsia, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Sebastian Rudolph. 2009. OWL 2 web ontology language primer. W3C Recommendation 27, 1 (2009), 123.
- SNOMED International. 2022. Data Analytics with SNOMED CT. Retrieved June 29, 2022 from https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/DOCANLYT/Data+Analytics+with+SNOMED+CT.
- Accenture Labs. 2020. Understanding Machines: Explainable AI. Technical Report. Retrieved September 9, 2022 from https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-85/accenture-understanding-machines-explainable-ai.pdf.
- Mu Li David G. Andersen Jun Woo Park Alexander J. Smola Amr Ahmed Vanja Josifovski James Long Eugene J. Shekita and Bor-Yiing Su. 2014. Scaling distributed machine learning with the parameter server. In Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’14) . 583–598.
- Joanne S. Luciano, Bosse Andersson, Colin Batchelor, Olivier Bodenreider, Tim Clark, Christine K. Denney, Christopher Domarew, et al. 2011. The Translational Medicine Ontology and Knowledge Base: Driving personalized medicine by bridging the gap between bench and bedside. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2 (2011), 1–21.
- Azalia Mirhoseini, Anna Goldie, Hieu Pham, Benoit Steiner, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. A hierarchical model for device placement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Azalia Mirhoseini, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Benoit Steiner, Rasmus Larsen, Yuefeng Zhou, Naveen Kumar, Mohammad Norouzi, Samy Bengio, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Device placement optimization with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 2430–2439.
- CEUR Workshop Proceedings Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning NeSy 2017 London UK July 17-18 2017 2003 Kamruzzaman Sarker Ning Xie Derek Doran Michael L. Raymer Pascal Hitzler Tarek R. Besold Artur S. d’Avila Garcez Isaac Noble Explaining trained neural networks with semantic web technologies: First steps 2017
- Ajay Thampi. 2020. Interpretable AI, Building Explainable Machine Learning Systems. Manning Publications.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A comprehensive review of model compression techniques in machine learning
Dantas, P. V., da Silva, W. S., Cordeiro, L. C., & Carvalho, C. B. (2024) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-024-05747-w · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Muhammad, D., & Bendechache, M. (2024) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.08.005 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Mersha, M. A., Lâm, K. N., Wood, J., AlShami, A. K., & Kalita, J. K. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128111 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits
Casper, S., Ezell, C., Siegmann, C., Kolt, N., Curtis, T. L., Bucknall, B., Haupt, A. A., Wei, K., Scheurer, J., Hobbhahn, M., et al. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659037 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Mienye, I. D., Obaido, G., Jere, N., Mienye, E., Aruleba, K., Emmanuel, I. D., & Ogbuokiri, B. (2024) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2024.101587 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Post-hoc vs ante-hoc explanations: xAI design guidelines for data scientists
Retzlaff, C. O., Angerschmid, A., Saranti, A., Schneeberger, D. M., Röttger, R., Müller, H., & Holzinger, A. (2024) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101243 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Sarker, I. H., Janicke, H., Mohsin, A., Gill, A. Q., & Maglaras, L. A. (2024) · ICT Express · doi:10.1016/j.icte.2024.05.007 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Explainable and interpretable artificial intelligence in medicine: a systematic bibliometric review
Frasca, M., La Torre, D., Pravettoni, G., & Cutica, I. (2024) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00114-7 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
How Interpretable Machine Learning Can Benefit Process Understanding in the Geosciences
Jiang, S., Sweet, L., Blougouras, G., Brenning, A., Li, W., Reichstein, M., Denzler, J., Shangguan, W., Yu, G., Huang, F., et al. (2024) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef004540 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Modern computing: Vision and challenges
Gill, S. S., Wu, H., Patros, P., Ottaviani, C., Arora, P., Pujol, V. C., Haunschild, D., Parlikad, A. K., Cetinkaya, O., Lutfiyya, H., et al. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.teler.2024.100116 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Self-citationA Primer on Generative Artificial Intelligence
Kalota, F. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14020172 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
From explainable to interactive AI: A literature review on current trends in human-AI interaction
Raees, M., Meijerink, I., Lykourentzou, I., Khan, V.-J., & Papangelis, K. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103301 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Mathew, D. E., Ebem, D. U., Ikegwu, A. C., Ukeoma, P. E., & Dibiaezue, N. F. (2025) · Neural Processing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11063-025-11732-2 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Explainable Generative AI (GenXAI): a survey, conceptualization, and research agenda
Schneider, J. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10916-x · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Explainable AI for Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Driving: A Systematic Review
Kuznietsov, A., Gyevnár, B., Wang, C., Peters, S., & Albrecht, S. V. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2024.3474469 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
XAIR: A Systematic Metareview of Explainable AI (XAI) Aligned to the Software Development Process
Clement, T., Kemmerzell, N., Abdelaal, M., & Amberg, M. (2023) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make5010006 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Avoiding common machine learning pitfalls
Lones, M. A. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.101046 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Arreche, O., Guntur, T. R., & Abdallah, M. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14104170 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence and explanation: How, why, and when to explain black boxes
Marcus, E., & Teuwen, J. (2024) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111393 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Explainable AI for Medical Data: Current Methods, Limitations, and Future Directions
Hossain, M. I., Zamzmi, G., Mouton, P. R., Salekin, M. S., Sun, Y., & Goldgof, D. B. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3637487 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Akkem, Y., Biswas, S. K., & Varanasi, A. (2024) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-024-10208-z · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Huang, C., Huang, Q., Huang, X., Wang, H., Li, M., Lin, K.-J., & Chang, Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3418098 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Explainable AI improves task performance in human–AI collaboration
Senoner, J., Schallmoser, S., Kratzwald, B., Feuerriegel, S., & Netland, T. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-82501-9 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Advancing 6G: Survey for Explainable AI on Communications and Network Slicing
Sun, H., Liu, Y., Al-Tahmeesschi, A., Nag, A., Soleimanpour-Moghadam, M., Canberk, B., Arslan, H., & Ahmadi, H. (2025) · IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society · doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2025.3534626 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Yenduri, G., Kaluri, R., Rajput, D. S., Lakshmanna, K., Gadekallu, T. R., Mahmud, M., & Brown, D. J. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3289496 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Digital Post-Disaster Risk Management Twinning: A Review and Improved Conceptual Framework
Lagap, U., & Ghaffarian, S. (2024) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104629 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Saheed, Y. K., Omole, A. I., & Sabit, M. O. (2025) · Sensors International · doi:10.1016/j.sintl.2024.100297 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Pavlov, M., Jovanović, L., Bačanin, N., Deveci, M., Zivkovic, M. Z., Tuba, M., Strumberger, I., & Pedrycz, W. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10678-y · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Dhal, S. B., & Kar, D. (2024) · Forecasting · doi:10.3390/forecast6040046 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Sadeghi, A., Bellavista, P., Song, W., & Yazdani-Asrami, M. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3371902 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
The challenges of integrating explainable artificial intelligence into GeoAI
Jin, X., & Sieber, R. E. (2023) · Transactions in GIS · doi:10.1111/tgis.13045 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Explainable AI-Based DDOS Attack Identification Method for IoT Networks
Kalutharage, C. S., Liu, X., Chrysoulas, C., Pitropakis, N., & Papadopoulos, P. (2023) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers12020032 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence methods for financial time series
Giudici, P., Piergallini, A., Recchioni, M. C., & Raffinetti, E. (2024) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2024.130176 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
AI in credit scoring: A comprehensive review of models and predictive analytics
Addy, W. A., Ajayi-Nifise, A. O., Bello, B. G., Tula, S. T., Odeyemi, O., & Falaiye, T. O. (2024) · Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances · doi:10.30574/gjeta.2024.18.2.0029 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Toward Explainable Affective Computing: A Review
Cortiñas-Lorenzo, K., & Lacey, G. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3270027 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Perspective on Drug Discovery
Qadri, Y. A., Shaikh, S., Ahmad, K., Choi, I., Kim, S. W., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2025) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics17091119 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Neuroimaging of Alzheimer’s Disease
Taiyeb Khosroshahi, M., Morsali, S., Gharakhanlou, S., Motamedi, A., Hassanbaghlou, S., Vahedi, H., Pedrammehr, S., Kabir, H. M. D., & Jafarizadeh, A. (2025) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15050612 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Du, Y., Mukherjee, T., Li, R., Hou, Z., Dutta, S., Arnold, C. B., Elwany, A. H., Kung, S., Tang, J., & DebRoy, T. (2025) · Progress in Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2025.101587 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
A review and benchmark of feature importance methods for neural networks
Mandler, H., & Weigand, B. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3679012 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
The future of AI-driven software engineering
Terragni, V., Vella, A., Roop, P., & Blincoe, K. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3715003 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
DFU-SIAM a Novel Diabetic Foot Ulcer Classification With Deep Learning
Toofanee, M. S. A., Dowlut, S., Hamroun, M., Tamine, K., Petit, V., Duong, A. K., & Sauveron, D. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3312531 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Toward Federated Large Language Models: Motivations, Methods, and Future Directions
Cheng, Y., Zhang, W., Zhang, Z., Zhang, C., Wang, S., & Mao, S. (2024) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2024.3503680 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Can we trust explainable artificial intelligence in wind power forecasting?
Liao, W., Fang, J., Ye, L., Bak‐Jensen, B., Yang, Z., & Porté‐Agel, F. (2024) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124273 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Saheed, Y. K., & Chukwuere, J. E. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3566980 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Leveraging XGBoost and explainable AI for accurate prediction of type 2 diabetes
Rafie, Z., Talab, M. S., Koor, B. E., Garavand, A., Salehnasab, C., & Ghaderzadeh, M. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-24953-w · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Khan, N., Ahmad, K., Tamimi, A. A., Alani, M. M., Bermak, A., & Khalil, I. M. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16121036 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Explainable and Data-Efficient Deep Learning for Enhanced Attack Detection in IIoT Ecosystem
Attique, D., Wang, H., Wang, P., et al. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3384374 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Fontes, M., de Almeida, J. D. S., & Cunha, A. M. T. D. S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3367606 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Yeong, D. J., Panduru, K., & Walsh, J. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25030856 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
The role of generative artificial intelligence in digital agri-food
Shahriar, S., Corradini, M. G., Sharif, S., Moussa, M. A., & Dara, R. A. (2025) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101787 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Harnessing human and machine intelligence for planetary-level climate action
Debnath, R., Creutzig, F., Sovacool, B. K., & Shuckburgh, E. F. (2023) · npj Climate Action · doi:10.1038/s44168-023-00056-3 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
A survey of transformer networks for time series forecasting
Zhao, J., Chu, F., Xie, L., Che, Y., Wu, Y., & Burke, A. F. (2025) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100883 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Explainable AI framework for reliable and transparent automated energy management in buildings
Teixeira, B., Carvalhais, L., Pinto, T. D. O., & Vale, Z. (2025) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.116246 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Manthena, H., Shajarian, S., Kimmell, J. C., Abdelsalam, M., Khorsandroo, S., & Gupta, M. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3555926 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Ukoba, K. O., Onisuru, O. R., Jen, T., Madyira, D. M., & Olatunji, K. O. (2025) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-025-36356-w · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Felfernig, A., Falkner, A. A., & Benavides, D. (2024) · SpringerBriefs in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61874-1 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Liu, Y., Liu, C., Zheng, J., Xu, C., & Wang, D. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/73374 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps: Their Role in Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Apostolopoulos, I. D., & Groumpos, P. P. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13063412 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Identifying the Public's Beliefs About Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Big Data Approach
Mahmoud, A. B., Kumar, V., & Spyropoulou, S. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2025.3534088 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Nazat, S., Arreche, O., & Abdallah, M. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24113515 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Sheik, A. G., Kumar, A., Srungavarapu, C. S., Azari, M., Ambati, S. R., Bux, F., & Patan, A. K. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110132 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Nie, T., Sun, J., & Ma, W. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence for Transportation · doi:10.1016/j.ait.2025.100003 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Explainable AI in agriculture: review of applications, methodologies, and future directions
Pai, D. G., Balachandra, M., & Kamath, R. (2025) · Engineering Research Express · doi:10.1088/2631-8695/ae086a · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture: The Power of Humans and the Way Ahead
Louta, M. D., Banti, K., & Karampelia, I. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3428401 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Explainable AI Frameworks: Navigating the Present Challenges and Unveiling Innovative Applications
Sharma, N. A., Chand, R. R., Buksh, Z., Ali, A. B. M. S., Hanif, A., & Beheshti, A. (2024) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a17060227 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Explanation, semantics, and ontology
Guizzardi, G., & Guarino, N. (2024) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2024.102325 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
The performance-interpretability trade-off: a comparative study of machine learning models
Assis, A., Dantas, J. R., & Andrade, E. (2024) · Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments · doi:10.1007/s40860-024-00240-0 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Fault prognosis of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicles: Recent progress, challenges and prospects
Li, H., Kaleem, M. B., Liu, K., Wu, Y., Liu, W., & Peng, Q. (2025) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2025.116002 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Ansari, Z. A., Tripathi, M. M., & Ahmed, R. (2025) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00307-8 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Ye, C., Wu, H., Oguchi, T., Tang, Y.-T., Pei, X.-J., & Wu, Y. (2025) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs17132280 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
transformative potential of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in business
Cano-Marin, E. (2024) · ESIC Market · doi:10.7200/esicm.55.333 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Hazard Susceptibility Mapping with Machine and Deep Learning: A Literature Review
Viloria, A. D. J. P., Folini, A., Carrión, D., & Brovelli, M. A. (2024) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs16183374 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Jauhar, S. K., Harinath, S., Krishnaswamy, V., & Paul, S. K. (2024) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-024-06348-z · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Reliable Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis for Pediatrics Using Machine Learning and Explainable AI
Jeon, I., Kim, M., So, D., Kim, E. Y., Nam, Y., Kim, S., Shim, S.-H., Kim, J., & Moon, J. (2024) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics14222504 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Decoding China's new-type industrialization: Insights from an XGBoost-SHAP analysis
Lai, Y., Wan, G., & Qin, X. (2024) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143927 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Towards Cognitive AI Systems: Workload and Characterization of Neuro-Symbolic AI
Wan, Z., Liu, C.-K., Yang, H., Raj, R., Li, C., You, H., Fu, Y., Wan, C., Samajdar, A., Lin, Y. C., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS) · doi:10.1109/ispass61541.2024.00033 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Using artificial intelligence in sustainability teaching and learning
Filho, W. L., Kim, E., Borsatto, J. M. L. S., & Marcolin, C. B. (2025) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-025-01159-w · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Holding AI-Based Systems Accountable in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review
Yuan, Q., & Chen, T. (2025) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2025.2469784 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Han, B., & Chakraborty, A. (2025) · Energy Conversion and Management · doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120272 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Fatima, S., Reddy, C. K. K., Sunerah, A., & Doss, S. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8151-9.ch002 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Mehdiyev, N., Majlatow, M., & Fettke, P. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110363 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Ethical Challenges in the Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Palliative Care
Adegbesan, A., Akingbola, A., Ojo, O., Jessica, O. U., Alao, U. H., Shagaya, U. N., Adewole, O. A., & Abdullahi, O. (2024) · Journal of Medicine Surgery and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100158 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Recent advances in wind turbine condition monitoring using SCADA data: A state-of-the-art review
Wang, S., Vidal, Y., & Pozo, F. (2025) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2025.111838 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
An Explainable CNN and Vision Transformer-Based Approach for Real-Time Food Recognition
Nfor, K. A., Armand, T. P. T., Ismaylovna, K. P., Joo, M.-I., & Kim, H. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17020362 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Importance, Use Domains, Stages, Output Shapes, and Challenges
Ullah, N., Khan, J. A., Falco, I. D., & Sannino, G. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3705724 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Cabitza, F., Fregosi, C., Campagner, A., & Natali, C. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63803-9_14 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Explainable AI for Text Classification: Lessons from a Comprehensive Evaluation of Post Hoc Methods
Cesarini, M., Malandri, L., Pallucchini, F., Seveso, A., & Xing, F. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-024-10325-w · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Liu, H., Wu, Y., Yu, Z., & Zhang, N. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00120 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Chengula, T. J., Mwakalonge, J., Comert, G., Sulle, M., Siuhi, S., & Osei, E. (2024) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100580 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
A cognitive approach to human–AI complementarity in dynamic decision-making
González, C., & Heidari, H. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-025-00499-x · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Overview: Machine Learning for Segmentation and Classification of Complex Steel Microstructures
Müller, M. J., Stiefel, M., Bachmann, B.-I., Britz, D., & Mücklich, F. (2024) · Metals · doi:10.3390/met14050553 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Ramakrishnan, A. B., Srıdevı, M., Vasudevan, S. K., et al. (2023) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2023.101436 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Concept-based Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Survey
Poeta, E., Ciravegna, G., Pastor, E., Cerquitelli, T., & Baralis, E. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3774643 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Lněnička, M., Nikiforova, A., Luterek, M., Milić, P., Rudmark, D., Neumaier, S., Kević, K., Zuiderwijk, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2024.102190 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
An interpretable machine learning framework for enhancing road transportation safety
Abdulrashid, I., Chiang, W., Sheu, J., et al. (2025) · Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review · doi:10.1016/j.tre.2025.103969 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Recent Advances in Deep Learning for Channel Coding: A Survey
Matsumine, T., & Ochiai, H. (2024) · IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society · doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2024.3472094 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Zuo, Z., Niu, Y., Li, J., Fu, H., & Zhou, M. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14188442 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Why should I trust you? Influence of explanation design on consumer behavior in AI-based services
Nizette, F., Hammedi, W., van Riel, A. C. R., & Steils, N. (2024) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-05-2024-0223 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Acoustic Features Analysis for Explainable Machine Learning-Based Audio Spoofing Detection
Bisogni, C., Loia, V., Nappi, M., & Pero, C. (2024) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2024.104145 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence for diagnosis of mild–moderate COVID-19 using haematological markers
Chadaga, K., Prabhu, S., Vivekananda Bhat, K., Sampathila, N., Umakanth, S., & Chadaga, R. (2023) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2023.2233541 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dwivedi, R., Dave, D., Naik, H., Singhal, S., Omer, R., Patel, P., Qian, B., Wen, Z., Shah, T., Morgan, G., & Ranjan, R.
- Affiliations
- Netaji Subhas University of Technology (IN)
- Pandit Deendayal Energy University (IN)
- Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 2023-01-16
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1-33
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W4294559022
- Semantic Scholar
- 3b8abd466697998c6e17df2cd30f48a7594d795b
- Cited by
- 1,386
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 479 · 2025: 554 · 2024: 284 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 74.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- orca.cardiff.ac.uk
- Locations
- ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- 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, trust in AI
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
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