Knowledge-graph-based explainable AI: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, knowledge graphs (KGs) have been widely applied in various domains for different purposes. The semantic model of KGs can represent knowledge through a hierarchical structure based on classes of entities, their properties, and their relationships. The construction of large KGs can enable the integration of heterogeneous information sources and help Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems be more explainable and interpretable. This systematic review examines a selection of recent publications to understand how KGs are currently being used in eXplainable AI systems. To achieve this goal, we design a framework and divide the use of KGs into four categories: extracting features, extracting relationships, constructing KGs, and KG reasoning. We also identify where KGs are mostly used in eXplainable AI systems (pre-model, in-model, and post-model) according to the aforementioned categories. Based on our analysis, KGs have been mainly used in pre-model XAI for feature and relation extraction. They were also utilised for inference and reasoning in post-model XAI. We found several studies that leveraged KGs to explain the XAI models in the healthcare domain.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".