The Analysis and Development of an XAI Process on Feature Contribution Explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research focuses on effective explanation techniques to understand and build AI models with trust, reliability, safety, and fairness. Feature importance explanation summarizes feature contributions for end-users to make model decisions. However, XAI methods may produce varied summaries that lead to further analysis to evaluate the consistency across multiple XAI methods on the same model and data set. This paper defines metrics to measure the consistency of feature contribution explanation summaries under feature importance order and saliency map. Driven by these consistency metrics, we develop an XAI process oriented on the XAI criterion of feature importance, which performs a systematical selection of XAI techniques and evaluation of explanation consistency. We demonstrate the process development involving twelve XAI methods on three topics, including a search ranking system, code vulnerability detection and image classification. Our contribution is a practical and systematic process with defined consistency metrics to produce rigorous feature contribution explanations.
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 | 0.040 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".