Cited by 131Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

XAIR: A Systematic Metareview of Explainable AI (XAI) Aligned to the Software Development Process

Open access
Clement, Tobias, Kemmerzell, Nils, Abdelaal, Mohamed, Amberg, Michael·2023·Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction

Abstract

Currently, explainability represents a major barrier that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is facing in regard to its practical implementation in various application domains. To combat the lack of understanding of AI-based systems, Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make black-box AI models more transparent and comprehensible for humans. Fortunately, plenty of XAI methods have been introduced to tackle the explainability problem from different perspectives. However, due to the vast search space, it is challenging for ML practitioners and data scientists to start with the development of XAI software and to optimally select the most suitable XAI methods. To tackle this challenge, we introduce XAIR, a novel systematic metareview of the most promising XAI methods and tools. XAIR differentiates itself from existing reviews by aligning its results to the five steps of the software development process, including requirement analysis, design, implementation, evaluation, and deployment. Through this mapping, we aim to create a better understanding of the individual steps of developing XAI software and to foster the creation of real-world AI applications that incorporate explainability. Finally, we conclude with highlighting new directions for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/make5010006

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Partial dependence plots result in a significantly biased computed feature effect, while ALEs provide a faster and unbiased substitute for visualisation.

    “While partial dependence plots result in a significantly biased computed feature effect, ALEs provide a faster and unbiased substitute for visualisation [138,139].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clement, T., Kemmerzell, N., Abdelaal, M., & Amberg, M.
Affiliations
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Software (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Clement, Tobias
Venue
Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-01-11
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
78-108
ISSN
2504-4990 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4315701371
Cited by
131
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 16
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OPUS FAU (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV), on behalf of the Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (02L19C155, 01IS21021A, 01IS17045)
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 › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
explainable AI, software development process, requirements analysis, XAI evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review