arXiv:2607. 14315v1 Announce Type: cross 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.
By Georgios Makridis, Georgios Fatouros, Athanasios Kiourtis, Dimitrios Kotios, Vasileios Koukos, Dimosthenis Kyriazis, Jonh Soldatos
arXiv:2508. 10971v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge graphs (KGs) can be enhanced through rule mining; however, the resulting logical rules are often difficult for humans to interpret due to their inherent complexity and the idiosyncratic labeling conventions of individual KGs.
By Nasim Shirvani-Mahdavi, Chengkai Li
arXiv:2606. 29860v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge graphs (KGs) organize real-world knowledge as triplets and underpin many downstream applications.
By Zihao Zheng, Borui Cai, Yao Zhao, Keshav Sood, Yong Xiang
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are increasingly constructed through automated extraction pipelines; however, such systems often introduce spurious or incomplete triples, which degrade downstream performance. Existing evaluation practices rely heavily on task-specific metrics or small-scale manual verification, offering limited insight into the structural and semantic fidelity of extracted graphs.
arXiv:2607. 10212v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are increasingly constructed through automated extraction pipelines; however, such systems often introduce spurious or incomplete triples, which degrade downstream performance.
By Nipun Misra, Vikranth Udandarao, Aanchal Gupta, Yogender Kumar, Manuj Mukherjee, Raghava Mutharaju
XAI-Arena proposes using large language models (LLMs) as judges to evaluate the quality of explainable AI (XAI) explanations, aiming for reproducibility, scalability, and multidimensional assessment. The framework assesses dimensions such as simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability across different datasets, models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive correlation between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho = .693, p < .001), supporting the viability of LLM-based evaluations.
By Yanfei Hu Fleischhauer, Alona Zharova, Nadja Klein, Stefan Feuerriegel