The Analysis and Development of an XAI Process on Feature Contribution Explanation
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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