资讯

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

📅 2026-09-28 ⏱️ 约 6 分钟阅读 ✍️ AI导航编辑部 🔗 arxiv.org
A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods
📝 内容摘要

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 24 Sep 2026] Title:A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for

📌 核心要点

  • Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
  • [Submitted on 24 Sep 2026]
  • From: Miquel Miró-Nicolau [view email][v1] Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:04:03 UTC (975 KB)

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

[Submitted on 24 Sep 2026]

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

View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:Evaluating explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods is a challenging task due to the lack of reliable evaluation procedures and, in particular, the absence of ground truth explanations. In the literature, existing evaluation approaches typically assess explanations by measuring their fidelity with respect to the predictions of a black-box model. However, such evaluation strategies only quantify the degree to which an explanation reproduces the model's output, without ensuring that the explanation correctly reflects the underlying decision process. As a consequence, different explanations may achieve similar fidelity scores while providing inconsistent or misleading interpretations of the model behavior. In this paper, we propose a framework for the evaluation of XAI methods based on synthetic ground truth. The proposed approach relies on controlled interventions to generate synthetic datasets in which the importance of input components can be determined by design. This enables the construction of ground truth explanations that are directly aligned with the behavior of the model under analysis. The framework is instantiated across three data domains, namely binary images, tabular data, and time series, allowing a comprehensive assessment of explanation methods in heterogeneous settings. Experimental results obtained by evaluating nine widely used XAI methods show significant limitations in current techniques and highlight the importance of synthetic, intervention-based benchmarks for a reliable assessment of explanation quality.

Submission history

From: Miquel Miró-Nicolau [view email][v1] Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:04:03 UTC (975 KB)

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

来源arxiv.org· 本文为编辑整理,仅供参考