Integrating Evidence into the Design of XAI and AI-based Decision Support Systems: A Means-End Framework for End-users in Construction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14209v2
• Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 06:11:52 GMT
• Title: Integrating Evidence into the Design of XAI and AI-based Decision Support Systems: A Means-End Framework for End-users in Construction
• Authors: Peter E. D. Love, Jane Matthews, Weili Fang, Hadi Mahamivanan,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a theoretical, evidence based means end framework for designing XAI enabled DSS.<n>It focuses on evaluating the strength, relevance, and utility of different types of evidence supporting AI generated explanations.
• Score: 0.1999925939110439
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence seeks to make the reasoning processes of AI models transparent and interpretable, particularly in complex decision making environments. In the construction industry, where AI based decision support systems are increasingly adopted, limited attention has been paid to the integration of supporting evidence that underpins the reliability and accountability of AI generated outputs. The absence of such evidence undermines the validity of explanations and the trustworthiness of system recommendations. This paper addresses this gap by introducing a theoretical, evidence based means end framework developed through a narrative review. The framework offers an epistemic foundation for designing XAI enabled DSS that generate meaningful explanations tailored to users knowledge needs and decision contexts. It focuses on evaluating the strength, relevance, and utility of different types of evidence supporting AI generated explanations. While developed with construction professionals as primary end users, the framework is also applicable to developers, regulators, and project managers with varying epistemic goals.

Related papers

• Mind the XAI Gap: A Human-Centered LLM Framework for Democratizing Explainable AI [3.301842921686179]
  We introduce a framework that ensures transparency and human-centered explanations tailored to the needs of experts and non-experts.<n>Our framework encapsulates in one response explanations understandable by non-experts and technical information to experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T21:41:07Z)
• Explainability in Context: A Multilevel Framework Aligning AI Explanations with Stakeholder with LLMs [11.11196150521188]
  This paper addresses how trust in AI is influenced by the design and delivery of explanations.<n>The framework consists of three layers: algorithmic and domain-based, human-centered, and social explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T08:54:41Z)
• KERAIA: An Adaptive and Explainable Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Representation and Reasoning [46.85451489222176]
  KERAIA is a novel framework and software platform for symbolic knowledge engineering.<n>It addresses the persistent challenges of representing, reasoning with, and executing knowledge in dynamic, complex, and context-sensitive environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T10:56:05Z)
• A Multi-Layered Research Framework for Human-Centered AI: Defining the Path to Explainability and Trust [2.4578723416255754]
  Human-Centered AI (HCAI) emphasizes alignment with human values, while Explainable AI (XAI) enhances transparency by making AI decisions more understandable.<n>This paper presents a novel three-layered framework that bridges HCAI and XAI to establish a structured explainability paradigm.<n>Our findings advance Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI), fostering AI systems that are transparent, adaptable, and ethically aligned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T01:29:30Z)
• AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans [54.19152688545896]
  There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness. The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:55:38Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• The AI-DEC: A Card-based Design Method for User-centered AI Explanations [20.658833770179903]
  We develop a design method, called AI-DEC, that defines four dimensions of AI explanations. We evaluate this method through co-design sessions with workers in healthcare, finance, and management industries. We discuss the implications of using the AI-DEC for the user-centered design of AI explanations in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-26T22:18:38Z)
• What Does Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence Actually Tell Us? A Case for Compositional and Contextual Validation of XAI Building Blocks [16.795332276080888]
  We propose a fine-grained validation framework for explainable artificial intelligence systems. We recognise their inherent modular structure: technical building blocks, user-facing explanatory artefacts and social communication protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-19T13:45:34Z)
• PADTHAI-MM: Principles-based Approach for Designing Trustworthy, Human-centered AI using MAST Methodology [5.215782336985273]
  The Multisource AI Scorecard Table (MAST) was designed to bridge the gap by offering a systematic, tradecraft-centered approach to evaluating AI-enabled decision support systems.<n>We introduce an iterative design framework called textitPrinciples-based Approach for Designing Trustworthy, Human-centered AI.<n>We demonstrate this framework in our development of the Reporting Assistant for Defense and Intelligence Tasks (READIT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T23:15:44Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Predictable Artificial Intelligence [77.1127726638209]
  This paper introduces the ideas and challenges of Predictable AI. It explores the ways in which we can anticipate key validity indicators of present and future AI ecosystems. We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Need-driven decision-making and prototyping for DLT: Framework and web-based tool [0.0]
  Multiple groups attempted to disentangle the technology from the associated hype and controversy. We develop a holistic analytical framework and open-source web tool for making evidence-based decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-18T12:19:47Z)
• Designing explainable artificial intelligence with active inference: A framework for transparent introspection and decision-making [0.0]
  We discuss how active inference can be leveraged to design explainable AI systems. We propose an architecture for explainable AI systems using active inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T21:38:09Z)
• Design Space Exploration and Explanation via Conditional Variational Autoencoders in Meta-model-based Conceptual Design of Pedestrian Bridges [52.77024349608834]
  This paper provides a performance-driven design exploration framework to augment the human designer through a Conditional Variational Autoencoder (CVAE) The CVAE is trained on 18'000 synthetically generated instances of a pedestrian bridge in Switzerland.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T17:28:31Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• A Computational Model of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework [0.0]
  This work presents the first attempt to turn the IAD framework into a computational model. We define the Action Situation Language -- or ASL -- whose syntax is tailored to the components of the IAD framework and that we use to write descriptions of social interactions. These models can be analyzed with the standard tools of game theory to predict which outcomes are being most incentivized, and evaluated according to their socially relevant properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-27T13:53:56Z)
• Towards an Interface Description Template for AI-enabled Systems [77.34726150561087]
  Reuse is a common system architecture approach that seeks to instantiate a system architecture with existing components. There is currently no framework that guides the selection of necessary information to assess their portability to operate in a system different than the one for which the component was originally purposed. We present ongoing work on establishing an interface description template that captures the main information of an AI-enabled component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T20:30:26Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.