A Multi-Component Framework for the Analysis and Design of Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of research in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) follows on two substantial developments. First, the enormous application success of modern machine learning methods, especially deep and reinforcement learning, have created high expectations for industrial, commercial, and social value. Second, the emerging and growing concern for creating ethical and trusted AI systems, including compliance with regulatory principles to ensure transparency and trust. These two threads have created a kind of “perfect storm” of research activity, all motivated to create and deliver any set of tools and techniques to address the XAI demand. As some surveys of current XAI suggest, there is yet to appear a principled framework that respects the literature of explainability in the history of science and which provides a basis for the development of a framework for transparent XAI. We identify four foundational components, including the requirements for (1) explicit explanation knowledge representation, (2) delivery of alternative explanations, (3) adjusting explanations based on knowledge of the explainee, and (4) exploiting the advantage of interactive explanation. With those four components in mind, we intend to provide a strategic inventory of XAI requirements, demonstrate their connection to a basic history of XAI ideas, and then synthesize those ideas into a simple framework that can guide the design of AI systems that require XAI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it