Artificial intelligence in high-stakes tabular domains cannot be evaluated by predictive performance alone, yet current practice still assesses explainability, fairness, robustness, privacy, and sustainability mostly in isolation. We propose the Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index (MIRAI), a unified evaluation framework that measures tabular models across these five dimensions under a controlled comparison setting and aggregates them into a single score. MIRAI combines established metrics through normalized and direction-aligned dimension scores, which enables direct comparison across models with different architectural and computational profiles. Experiments on healthcare, financial, and socioeconomic datasets show that higher predictive performance does not necessarily imply better overall integrity and responsibility. In several cases, simpler models achieve a stronger cross-dimensional balance than more complex deep tabular architectures. MIRAI provides a compact and practical basis for responsible model selection in regulated settings.
Despite the wide use of explainability techniques to attempt to understand the behavior of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the generated explanations may not always be reliable. An explanation can appear plausible to humans but fail to capture the internal reasoning of a model, particularly when dealing with complex tabular data. This paper studies the trustworthiness of local explainability techniques when applied to complex tabular classification tasks, considering evaluated metrics for three main properties: faithfulness to the model's predictions, robustness to input data variations, and complexity of the explanation itself. A benchmark was performed for Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), Kernel SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), and Feature Ablation techniques, across 32 datasets and different types of machine learning models. Model performance ranges were analyzed to identify two groups: consensus-correct, which are samples that all models predicted correctly, and consensus-wrong, samples that all models predicted incorrectly. The obtained results demonstrate that that the explanations are not always correlated with a model's predictive performance. Instead, dataset complexity and feature distributions seem to be the main factors affecting explanation quality and reliability.
Foundation models for predictive machine learning on tabular data have recently gained significant traction in academia and industry. Research communities across disciplines are increasingly evaluating tabular foundation models on diverse datasets and tasks. However, these task- and discipline-specific evaluations remain largely inaccessible to model researchers because benchmark software and evaluation protocols are fragmented. As a result, model researchers rely on standard benchmarks, which are mostly defined for tasks where tabular foundation models already excel. The most challenging scenarios are excluded, limiting meaningful progress in the field by focusing on marginal improvements on IID data rather than on broader, more demanding challenges. To overcome this, we introduce BeyondArena, the first unified holistic benchmark for tabular data that supports diverse task types (IID, temporal, grouped), across sample size and feature dimensionality scales, with diverse feature types (with text, with high cardinality) from a broad range of disciplines. To enable unified benchmarking beyond standard benchmarks, we introduce Data Foundry, a Python framework and metadata schema for curating tabular datasets for predictive machine learning. Our results across 11 models and 142 curated datasets show that existing tabular foundation models excel on tiny- to medium-sized IID data, while traditional tree-based and deep learning models still dominate on non-IID, large, and high-dimensional datasets. BeyondArena guides model research for the most demanding challenges in tabular data, enabling progress towards truly foundational tabular models.
Lennart Purucker, Andrej Tschalzev, Nick Erickson +7
The rapid adoption of deep learning models in high-risk domains has intensified the need for trustworthy Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). However, objectively evaluating explanation fidelity and aligning XAI metrics with human-centered understanding remain critical open challenges. In this work, we propose a model-agnostic metric, the EPC score, which is an extension of the Explainability-Performance Coefficient (EPC), that quantifies explanation quality by explicitly balancing the trade-off between feature selection sparsity and preserved model performance. Through an empirical validation across tabular, text, and image modalities, we show that the EPC score effectively uncovers operational dependencies among network activations, data dimensionality, and explainer performance. Furthermore, we validate the EPC score against independent human-based explanations, proving that higher EPC scores strongly align with human lexical sentiment judgments and spatial visual annotations.