Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1811.11839 v5 pith:CHNWDWMZ submitted 2018-11-28 cs.HC

A Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systems

classification cs.HC
keywords designevaluationmethodsdifferentgoalsinterpretablesystemsdisciplines
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The need for interpretable and accountable intelligent systems grows along with the prevalence of artificial intelligence applications used in everyday life. Explainable intelligent systems are designed to self-explain the reasoning behind system decisions and predictions, and researchers from different disciplines work together to define, design, and evaluate interpretable systems. However, scholars from different disciplines focus on different objectives and fairly independent topics of interpretable machine learning research, which poses challenges for identifying appropriate design and evaluation methodology and consolidating knowledge across efforts. To this end, this paper presents a survey and framework intended to share knowledge and experiences of XAI design and evaluation methods across multiple disciplines. Aiming to support diverse design goals and evaluation methods in XAI research, after a thorough review of XAI related papers in the fields of machine learning, visualization, and human-computer interaction, we present a categorization of interpretable machine learning design goals and evaluation methods to show a mapping between design goals for different XAI user groups and their evaluation methods. From our findings, we develop a framework with step-by-step design guidelines paired with evaluation methods to close the iterative design and evaluation cycles in multidisciplinary XAI teams. Further, we provide summarized ready-to-use tables of evaluation methods and recommendations for different goals in XAI research.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evaluating Actionability in Explainable AI

    cs.HC 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    From 14 interviews in medicine and education, the authors derive a catalog mapping 12 information categories to 60 user actions across three action dimensions.