arXiv AI By Jerzy Stefanowski

Challenges in Evaluating Explanation Methods for Static and Evolving Data

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 06351v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper addresses the limitations of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) with respect to insufficient evaluation.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
6d ago

A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods

The paper introduces a synthetic ground‑truth framework for evaluating explainable AI (XAI) methods, addressing the lack of reliable evaluation procedures. By using controlled interventions to create datasets where the importance of input components is known, the framework generates ground‑truth explanations that align with the model’s actual decision process. The authors apply this approach to binary images, tabular data, and time series, and find that nine popular XAI methods exhibit significant limitations, underscoring the need for intervention‑based benchmarks.

By Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau, Francesco Spinnato, Riccardo Guidotti
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 7

NOTAI.AI: Explainable Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Curvature and Feature Attribution

NOTAI.AI is an explainable AI-generated text detection system that goes beyond a simple binary label by showing which signals influenced its prediction. It combines sentence-level conditional probability curvature, a neural detector score, and interpretable stylometric and readability features in an XGBoost meta-classifier, and explains predictions using TreeSHAP feature contributions that can be turned into concise natural-language explanations. Evaluated on a balanced subset of RAID, the full model achieves 0.9685 F1 and receives 94.5–98.6% approval from model judges for the faithfulness of its explanations.

By Oleksandr Marchenko Breneur, Adelaide Danilov, Aria Nourbakhsh, Salima Lamsiyah