Cloud-Based XAI Services for Assessing Open Repository Models Under Adversarial Attacks
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
The opacity of AI models necessitates both validation and evaluation before their integration into services. To investigate these models, explainable AI (XAI) employs methods that elucidate the relationship between input features and output predictions. The operations of XAI extend beyond the execution of a single algorithm, involving a series of activities that include preprocessing data, adjusting XAI to align with model parameters, invoking the model to generate predictions, and summarizing the XAI results. Adversarial attacks are well-known threats that aim to mislead AI models. The assessment complexity, especially for XAI, increases when open-source AI models are subject to adversarial attacks due to various combinations. To automate the numerous entities and tasks involved in XAI - based assessments, we propose a cloud-based service framework that encapsulates computing components as microser-vices and organizes assessment tasks into pipelines. The current XAI tools are not inherently service-oriented. This framework also integrates open XAI tool libraries as part of the pipeline composition. We demonstrate the application of XAI services for assessing five quality attributes of AI models: (1) computational cost, (2) performance, (3) robustness, (4) explanation deviation, and (5) explanation resilience across computer vision and tabular cases. The service framework generates aggregated analysis that showcases the quality attributes for more than a hundred combination scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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