Bridging the Disciplinary Gap in Explainable AI: From Abstract Desiderata to Concrete Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20081v1
• Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 16:35:00 GMT
• Title: Bridging the Disciplinary Gap in Explainable AI: From Abstract Desiderata to Concrete Tasks
• Abstract summary: We argue that many desiderata are not independent, but instead form dependency structures.<n>Instead of addressing all desiderata at once, we focus on subsets of dependency structures and translate them into concrete XAI tasks.
• Score: 8.659762670287142
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) is often criticized for failing to satisfy broad desiderata (e.g., fairness, accountability) and for limited practical value to stakeholders. This challenge partly arises because researchers across disciplines prioritize different sets of desiderata that remain underspecified and context-dependent, yet expect XAI to satisfy them simultaneously, resulting in fragmented and sometimes incompatible operationalizations. We argue that many desiderata are not independent, but instead form dependency structures in which higher-level goals (\emph{e.g.}, trust, accountability) rely on more foundational properties (\emph{e.g.}, faithfulness, robustness). Some desiderata are multi-faceted and are best understood within these structures. In particular, instead of addressing all desiderata at once, we focus on subsets of dependency structures and translate them into concrete XAI tasks, thereby decomposing research questions into benchmarkable and solvable units. To this end, we propose a three-axis taxonomy (\emph{target}, \emph{functional role}, and \emph{mode of justification}) and a three-step framework for deriving well-scoped, benchmarkable XAI tasks. Our approach builds on a systematic literature review and conceptual analysis, and supports clarifying desiderata, identifying dependencies, scoping feasibility, and delimiting the design space to derive concrete XAI tasks from abstract desiderata. We illustrate its utility through two explanatory cases, showing how the taxonomy and framework guide systematic task design and evaluation in XAI. {\color{red}{This is a preprint of a paper that will appear in AISoLA 2026.}}

Related papers

• Deep Reasoning in General Purpose Agents via Structured Meta-Cognition [58.185853639335896]
  We introduce an inference-time approach for constructing task-specific scaffolds through structured meta-reasoning.<n>We instantiate this approach in a general-purpose agent that distributes complex tasks across more controlled reasoning threads.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T01:21:37Z)
• HiCrew: Hierarchical Reasoning for Long-Form Video Understanding via Question-Aware Multi-Agent Collaboration [9.907651803712803]
  We introduce HiCrew, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that addresses limitations through three core contributions.<n>First, we propose a Hybrid Tree structure that preserves temporal topology while performing relevance-guided hierarchical clustering.<n>Second, we develop a Question-Aware Captioning mechanism that synthesizes intent-driven visual prompts to generate semantic descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T09:04:32Z)
• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• Dynamics Within Latent Chain-of-Thought: An Empirical Study of Causal Structure [58.89643769707751]
  We study latent chain-of-thought as a manipulable causal process in representation space.<n>We find that latent-step budgets behave less like homogeneous extra depth and more like staged functionality with non-local routing.<n>These results motivate mode-conditional and stability-aware analyses as more reliable tools for interpreting and improving latent reasoning systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T15:25:12Z)
• Unifying Tree Search Algorithm and Reward Design for LLM Reasoning: A Survey [92.71325249013535]
  Deliberative tree search is a cornerstone of Large Language Model (LLM) research.<n>This paper introduces a unified framework that deconstructs search algorithms into three core components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T03:29:18Z)
• Unifying VXAI: A Systematic Review and Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI [4.715895520943978]
  Explainable AI (XAI) addresses this issue by providing human-understandable explanations of model behavior.<n>Despite the growing number of XAI methods, the field lacks standardized evaluation protocols and consensus on appropriate metrics.<n>We introduce a unified framework for the eValuation of XAI (VXAI)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T12:25:37Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Dependency Structure Augmented Contextual Scoping Framework for Multimodal Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis [9.240806100782718]
  DASCO is a fine-grained scope-oriented framework for sentiment analysis.<n>It enhances aspect-level sentiment reasoning by leveraging dependency parsing trees.<n>Experiments on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that DASCO achieves state-of-the-art performance in MABSA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T16:05:09Z)
• PanoSent: A Panoptic Sextuple Extraction Benchmark for Multimodal Conversational Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis [74.41260927676747]
  This paper bridges the gaps by introducing a multimodal conversational Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) To benchmark the tasks, we construct PanoSent, a dataset annotated both manually and automatically, featuring high quality, large scale, multimodality, multilingualism, multi-scenarios, and covering both implicit and explicit sentiment elements. To effectively address the tasks, we devise a novel Chain-of-Sentiment reasoning framework, together with a novel multimodal large language model (namely Sentica) and a paraphrase-based verification mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T13:51:01Z)
• One Prompt is not Enough: Automated Construction of a Mixture-of-Expert Prompts [110.94724216491753]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong generalization capabilities when prompted with language instructions and in-context demos. Various methods have been explored to automate the instruction design, but they restricted the searched prompt to one instruction. We adopt the Mixture-of-Expert paradigm and divide the problem space into a set of sub-regions. A two-phase process is developed to construct the specialized expert for each region. A region-based joint search of an instruction per expert complements the demos assigned to it, yielding a synergistic effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T23:05:08Z)
• A Systematic Literature Review on Explainability for Machine/Deep Learning-based Software Engineering Research [23.273934717819795]
  This paper presents a systematic literature review of approaches that aim to improve the explainability of AI models within the context of Software Engineering.<n>We aim to summarize the SE tasks where XAI techniques have shown success to date; (2) classify and analyze different XAI techniques; and (3) investigate existing evaluation approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T03:20:40Z)
• A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AI [10.81142163495028]
  We identify seven archetypal claims from 175 scientific articles on the alleged fairness benefits of XAI. We notice that claims are often vague and simplistic, lacking normative grounding, or poorly aligned with the actual capabilities of XAI. We suggest to conceive XAI not as an ethical panacea but as one of many tools to approach the multidimensional, sociotechnical challenge of algorithmic fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T08:17:45Z)
• What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research [0.8707090176854576]
  Main aim of explainability approaches is to satisfy specific interests, goals, expectations, needs, and demands regarding artificial systems. It often remains unclear how explainability approaches are supposed to achieve the goal of satisfying stakeholders' desiderata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-15T19:54:33Z)

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.