Towards a Unified Multidimensional Explainability Metric: Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14315v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 19:20:36 GMT
• Title: Towards a Unified Multidimensional Explainability Metric: Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Models
• Abstract summary: We present a framework for assessing the explainability of various XAI methods across multiple datasets and machine learning models.<n>We focus on three key aspects of explainability: fidelity, simplicity, and stability.<n>Our work contributes to the growing field of XAI by providing a robust and versatile tool for evaluating and comparing the explainability of various XAI methods.
• Score: 0.4383559909463423
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we present a comprehensive framework for assessing the explainability of various XAI methods, such as LIME and SHAP, across multiple datasets and machine learning models, with the ultimate goal of creating a unified multidimensional explainability score. Our methodology focuses on three key aspects of explainability: fidelity, simplicity, and stability. We leverage benchmarking experiments to systematically evaluate these aspects and use the insights gained to construct an offline knowledge base. This knowledge base captures the explainability scores for each registered model and serves as a valuable resource for context-dependent evaluation of explainability. By analyzing the complementary characteristics and metadata of AI models, datasets, and XAI methods, the knowledge base will enable the estimation of explainability scores for previously unseen datasets and models. Properties like fidelity, simplicity, and stability may vary significantly based on the dataset, underlying model, and domain expertise of the end user. We demonstrate our framework by applying it to three open-source datasets, discussing the implications of the obtained results in relation to the characteristics of the datasets. Our work contributes to the growing field of XAI by providing a robust and versatile tool for evaluating and comparing the explainability of various XAI methods, ultimately supporting the development of more transparent and trustworthy AI systems.

Related papers

• Interpretable and Fair Generalized Additive Neural Networks via Multi-objective Learning [52.66717986145448]
  Interpretability and fairness are two of the most emphasized dimensions in trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI)<n>This paper focuses on neural network (NN)-based generalized additive models (GAMs), a class of self-interpretable models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-05T07:29:42Z)
• A Framework for Generating Artificial Datasets to Validate Absolute and Relative Position Concepts [2.0391237204597368]
  The framework focuses on fundamental concepts such as object recognition, absolute and relative positions, and attribute identification.<n>The proposed framework offers a valuable instrument for generating diverse and comprehensive datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T18:37:24Z)
• Why Do Open-Source LLMs Struggle with Data Analysis? A Systematic Empirical Study [55.09905978813599]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise in automating data analysis tasks.<n>Yet open-source models face significant limitations in these kinds of reasoning-intensive scenarios.<n>In this work, we investigate strategies to enhance the data analysis capabilities of open-source LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T17:04:23Z)
• VirtualXAI: A User-Centric Framework for Explainability Assessment Leveraging GPT-Generated Personas [0.07499722271664146]
  The demand for eXplainable AI (XAI) has increased to enhance the interpretability, transparency, and trustworthiness of AI models.<n>We propose a framework that integrates quantitative benchmarking with qualitative user assessments through virtual personas.<n>This yields an estimated XAI score and provides tailored recommendations for both the optimal AI model and the XAI method for a given scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T09:44:18Z)
• User-centric evaluation of explainability of AI with and for humans: a comprehensive empirical study [5.775094401949666]
  This study is located in the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) It focuses on the results of a user-centered assessment of commonly used eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T12:32:39Z)
• InsightBench: Evaluating Business Analytics Agents Through Multi-Step Insight Generation [79.09622602860703]
  We introduce InsightBench, a benchmark dataset with three key features.<n>It consists of 100 datasets representing diverse business use cases such as finance and incident management.<n>Unlike existing benchmarks focusing on answering single queries, InsightBench evaluates agents based on their ability to perform end-to-end data analytics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T22:06:09Z)
• EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods [1.6383837447674294]
  This paper brings together various benchmark datasets and novel performance metrics in an initial benchmarking platform. Our datasets incorporate ground truth explanations for class-conditional features. This platform assesses the performance of post-hoc XAI methods in the quality of the explanations they produce.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:16:06Z)
• Evaluating Explainability in Machine Learning Predictions through Explainer-Agnostic Metrics [0.0]
  We develop six distinct model-agnostic metrics designed to quantify the extent to which model predictions can be explained. These metrics measure different aspects of model explainability, ranging from local importance, global importance, and surrogate predictions. We demonstrate the practical utility of these metrics on classification and regression tasks, and integrate these metrics into an existing Python package for public use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T15:28:36Z)
• The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
  One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method. We address this issue through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z)
• Latent Properties of Lifelong Learning Systems [59.50307752165016]
  We introduce an algorithm-agnostic explainable surrogate-modeling approach to estimate latent properties of lifelong learning algorithms. We validate the approach for estimating these properties via experiments on synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-28T20:58:13Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)

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.