MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explainable AI for the Metaverse: A Short Survey

2023· article· en· W4388039953 on OpenAlex
Чурашов А.Г., Gokul Yenduri, Gautam Srivastava, M. Ramalingam, Dasaradharami Reddy Kandati, Muhammad Uzair, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaverseComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Transparency (behavior)Possible worldHuman–computer interactionData scienceKey (lock)Virtual realityWorld Wide WebEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtual reality, augmented reality, and immersive technologies have advanced rapidly, giving rise to the concept of the metaverse. As users delve into these virtual environments, it becomes crucial to understand the decision-making processes of intelligent systems within the metaverse. Explainable AI (XAI) provides a framework for interpreting and understanding the outcomes of artificial intelligence, making it an essential component for ensuring transparency, trust, and user engagement within the metaverse. This paper aims to explore the fusion of XAI in the context of the metaverse, including key enabling technologies, the impact of XAI on metaverse applications, integration challenges, and future directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it