State-of-the-Art Explainability Methods with Focus on Visual Analytics Showcased by Glioma Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to reflect on a list of libraries providing decision support to AI models. The goal is to assist in finding suitable libraries that support visual explainability and interpretability of the output of their AI model. Especially in sensitive application areas, such as medicine, this is crucial for understanding the decision-making process and for a safe application. Therefore, we use a glioma classification model’s reasoning as an underlying case. We present a comparison of 11 identified Python libraries that provide an addition to the better known SHAP and LIME libraries for visualizing explainability. The libraries are selected based on certain attributes, such as being implemented in Python, supporting visual analysis, thorough documentation, and active maintenance. We showcase and compare four libraries for global interpretations (ELI5, Dalex, InterpretML, and SHAP) and three libraries for local interpretations (Lime, Dalex, and InterpretML). As use case, we process a combination of openly available data sets on glioma for the task of studying feature importance when classifying the grade II, III, and IV brain tumor subtypes glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), anaplastic astrocytoma (AASTR), and oligodendroglioma (ODG), out of 1276 samples and 252 attributes. The exemplified model confirms known variations and studying local explainability contributes to revealing less known variations as putative biomarkers. The full comparison spreadsheet and implementation examples can be found in the appendix.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".