Cited by 1,386Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Explainable AI (XAI): Core Ideas, Techniques, and Solutions

Open access
Dwivedi, Rudresh, Dave, Devam, Naik, Het, Singhal, Smiti, Omer, Rana, Patel, Pankesh, Qian, Bin, Wen, Zhenyu +3 more·2023·ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3561048

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

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.

  • 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 given

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    During 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Between 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    In 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    XAI 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    An 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Feature 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Global 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).

    Premisereasoning

    Linear 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Higher accuracy requires more complex and expressive models.

    “Therefore, for higher accuracy, we require more complex and expressive models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Black-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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Datasets often contain inherent discrimination.

    “Datasets often contain inherent discrimination.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AutoML 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).

    Premisecitation

    ICE 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).

    Premisecitation

    Symbols 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Logistic 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Deep 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 given

    Generalized 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Local 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 given

    Tree 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Too 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Neural 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Linear 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Post-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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Reasoning 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).

    Premisereasoning

    Synchronous 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Neural 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ring-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).

    Premisereasoning

    Histograms 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Permutation importance is considered computationally expensive.

    “It is considered as a computationally expensive technique.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Dimensionality 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Training 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Tree 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Small 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Symbolic 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    GAMs 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Linear 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    A 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Black-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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Subsymbolic 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Asynchronous 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Ontologies 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In 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).

    Premisereasoning

    GAMs 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Parameter 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Overfitting 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Combining 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    GAMs are more flexible than regression.

    “A generalized additive model (GAM) is much more flexible than Regression.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Decision 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Parameter 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Ontologies 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).

    Premisecitation

    Parameter 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 given

    Support 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mao 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 given

    Kernel 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    DiCE 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 given

    ICE 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Compared 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Counterfactuals 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    DiCE 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.

    Premisecitation

    SHAP 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 given

    Crunching large background data still incurs high computational costs.

    “However, crunching large background data still incurs high computational costs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    ALE 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Shapley 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    An 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Anchors 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Kernel 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Alibi 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).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    PN works similarly to Counterfactuals.

    “PN works similarly to Counterfactuals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    LIME 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    LIME 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    DiCE 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 given

    It 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    DiCE 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 given

    Using 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Alibi 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 given

    Counterfactual 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    PP works similarly to Anchors.

    “PP works similarly to Anchors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Integrated 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    SHAP 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    It 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Counterfactuals 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    SHAP 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    At 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    LIME 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    If 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Alibi 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).

    Premisecitation

    The 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.

    Premisereasoning

    All 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    PDP demonstrates global effects while concealing heterogeneous effects.

    “PDP demonstrates global effects, concealing the heterogeneous effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Counterfactual 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Traditional 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Integrated 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Positive 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    How much explanation is needed varies across experiments.

    “The extent of requisite explainability differs from one experiment to another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Knowing 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    XAI 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    A 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Figure 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Models 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Designing a system frequently involves balancing requirements that conflict.

    “System design often needs to balance competing requirements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    When 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 claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Ensemble 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    In 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    AI 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning

    When 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    When 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
135 of 135

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

    Minor

    The outline says the toolkits are covered in Section 9, whereas Section 9 is about design considerations; software toolkits are in Section 8.

  • Tree ensembles are classified as both white-box and black-box

    Minor

    Table 3 lists tree ensembles among white-box models, but Section 5.2 explicitly includes them among black-box models.

  • Table 5 is described as covering the wrong type of explainability

    Minor

    Section 5.5 says Table 5 concerns data explainability, but the table caption says it concerns model explainability.

  • Outline misnumbers the data and model explainability sections

    Minor

    The outline places data explainability in Section 5 and model explainability in Section 6, but their headings are Sections 4 and 5, respectively.

  • Intrinsic and post-hoc labels are reversed

    Minor

    Section 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.

  • Table 8 conflicts with the stated Skater capabilities

    Minor

    Table 8 marks Skater as unable to perform feature importance and partial dependence plots, but the Skater description expressly says it can perform both.

  • Low concave-point values receive opposite interpretations

    Minor

    The 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.

  • Outline gives the wrong conclusion section

    Minor

    The outline places the conclusion in Section 11, but the conclusion is headed Section 10.

  • Table 6 is assigned two different subjects

    Minor

    The text identifies Table 6 as a feature-importance example, while its caption identifies it as a table of distributed-learning frameworks.

9 of 9

Cites

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

  1. David Beckett, Tim Berners-Lee, Eric Prud’hommeaux, and Gavin Carothers. 2014. RDF 1.1 Turtle. World Wide Web Consortium 2014 (2014), 18–31.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. Xin He Kaiyong Zhao and Xiaowen Chu. 2019. AutoML: A survey of the state-of-the-art. arxiv:1908.00709 [cs.LG]. · arXiv
  5. 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.
  6. SNOMED International. 2022. Data Analytics with SNOMED CT. Retrieved June 29, 2022 from https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/DOCANLYT/Data+Analytics+with+SNOMED+CT.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Ajay Thampi. 2020. Interpretable AI, Building Explainable Machine Learning Systems. Manning Publications.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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)
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Published
2023-01-16
Volume
55
Issue
9
Pages
1-33
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
OpenAlex
W4294559022
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
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