Evolutionary Computation and Explainable AI: A Roadmap to Understandable Intelligent Systems
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
Artificial intelligence methods are being increasingly applied across various domains, but their often opaque nature has raised concerns about accountability and trust. In response, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has emerged to address the need for human-understandable AI systems. Evolutionary computation (EC), a family of powerful optimization and learning algorithms, offers significant potential to contribute to XAI, and vice versa. This article provides an introduction to XAI and reviews current techniques for explaining machine learning (ML) models. We then explore how EC can be leveraged in XAI and examine existing XAI approaches that incorporate EC techniques. Furthermore, we discuss the application of XAI principles within EC itself, investigating how these principles can illuminate the behavior and outcomes of EC algorithms, their (automatic) configuration, and the underlying problem landscapes they optimize. Finally, we discuss open challenges in XAI and highlight opportunities for future research at the intersection of XAI and EC. Our goal is to demonstrate EC’s suitability for addressing current explainability challenges and to encourage further exploration of these methods, ultimately contributing to the development of more understandable and trustworthy ML models and EC algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it