A Functionally-Grounded Benchmark Framework for XAI Methods: Insights and Foundations from a Systematic Literature Review

IF 23.8 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS
Dulce Canha, Sylvain Kubler, Kary Främling, Guy Fagherazzi
{"title":"A Functionally-Grounded Benchmark Framework for XAI Methods: Insights and Foundations from a Systematic Literature Review","authors":"Dulce Canha, Sylvain Kubler, Kary Främling, Guy Fagherazzi","doi":"10.1145/3737445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming industries, offering new opportunities to manage and enhance innovation. However, these advancements bring significant challenges for scientists and businesses, with one of the most critical being the ‘trustworthiness” of AI systems. A key requirement of trustworthiness is <jats:italic>transparency</jats:italic> , closely linked to <jats:italic>explicability</jats:italic> . Consequently, the exponential growth of eXplainable AI (XAI) has led to the development of numerous methods and metrics for explainability. Nevertheless, this has resulted in a lack of standardized and formal definitions for fundamental XAI properties (e.g., what do soundness, completeness, and faithfulness of an explanation entail? How is the stability of an XAI method defined?). This lack of consensus makes it difficult for XAI practitioners to establish a shared foundation, thereby impeding the effective benchmarking of XAI methods. This survey paper addresses these challenges with two primary objectives. First, it systematically reviews and categorizes XAI properties, distinguishing them between human-centered (relying on empirical studies involving explainees) or functionally-grounded (quantitative metrics independent of explainees). Second, it expands this analysis by introducing a hierarchically structured, functionally grounded benchmark framework for XAI methods, providing formal definitions of XAI properties. The framework’s practicality is demonstrated by applying it to two widely used methods: LIME and SHAP.","PeriodicalId":50926,"journal":{"name":"ACM Computing Surveys","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Computing Surveys","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3737445","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming industries, offering new opportunities to manage and enhance innovation. However, these advancements bring significant challenges for scientists and businesses, with one of the most critical being the ‘trustworthiness” of AI systems. A key requirement of trustworthiness is transparency , closely linked to explicability . Consequently, the exponential growth of eXplainable AI (XAI) has led to the development of numerous methods and metrics for explainability. Nevertheless, this has resulted in a lack of standardized and formal definitions for fundamental XAI properties (e.g., what do soundness, completeness, and faithfulness of an explanation entail? How is the stability of an XAI method defined?). This lack of consensus makes it difficult for XAI practitioners to establish a shared foundation, thereby impeding the effective benchmarking of XAI methods. This survey paper addresses these challenges with two primary objectives. First, it systematically reviews and categorizes XAI properties, distinguishing them between human-centered (relying on empirical studies involving explainees) or functionally-grounded (quantitative metrics independent of explainees). Second, it expands this analysis by introducing a hierarchically structured, functionally grounded benchmark framework for XAI methods, providing formal definitions of XAI properties. The framework’s practicality is demonstrated by applying it to two widely used methods: LIME and SHAP.
基于功能的XAI方法基准框架:来自系统文献综述的见解和基础
人工智能(AI)正在改变行业,为管理和加强创新提供了新的机会。然而,这些进步给科学家和企业带来了重大挑战,其中最关键的挑战之一是人工智能系统的“可信度”。可信度的一个关键要求是透明度,与可解释性密切相关。因此,可解释人工智能(XAI)的指数级增长导致了许多可解释性方法和指标的发展。然而,这导致缺乏对基本XAI属性的标准化和形式化定义(例如,解释的可靠性、完整性和可靠性意味着什么?)XAI方法的稳定性是如何定义的?缺乏共识使得XAI从业者很难建立一个共享的基础,从而阻碍了XAI方法的有效基准测试。本调查报告以两个主要目标来解决这些挑战。首先,它系统地回顾和分类了XAI属性,将它们区分为以人为中心(依赖于涉及被解释者的实证研究)或以功能为基础(独立于被解释者的定量度量)。其次,通过为XAI方法引入层次结构的、基于功能的基准测试框架,提供XAI属性的正式定义,扩展了这一分析。通过将该框架应用于两种广泛使用的方法:LIME和SHAP,证明了该框架的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACM Computing Surveys
ACM Computing Surveys 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
33.20
自引率
0.60%
发文量
372
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: ACM Computing Surveys is an academic journal that focuses on publishing surveys and tutorials on various areas of computing research and practice. The journal aims to provide comprehensive and easily understandable articles that guide readers through the literature and help them understand topics outside their specialties. In terms of impact, CSUR has a high reputation with a 2022 Impact Factor of 16.6. It is ranked 3rd out of 111 journals in the field of Computer Science Theory & Methods. ACM Computing Surveys is indexed and abstracted in various services, including AI2 Semantic Scholar, Baidu, Clarivate/ISI: JCR, CNKI, DeepDyve, DTU, EBSCO: EDS/HOST, and IET Inspec, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信