Abstract
We observe a phenomenon that current algorithmic research in the field of explainable artificial intelligence primarily pursues better performance on several proxy metrics. On the one hand, these proxy metrics themselves are more or less flawed and cannot properly measure the quality of methods. On the other hand, metric-oriented research approaches often lead to the neglect of the rationality and interpretability of the methods themselves. Explainable artificial intelligence is abbreviated as XAI. The metric-driven research paradigm has resulted in a lack of interpretability of the relevant XAI methods themselves. Accordingly, there is a need for interpretability research on XAI methods, which can be playfully referred to as XXAI. This paper is one of our works on XXAI. This paper takes Generic Attention-model Explainability (GAE), a widely influential model interpretation method , or rather, XAI method that represents an important technical route, as the research object, and explores the real working mechanism and flaws of this method as well as the technical route it represents. Based on the conclusions of this study, it may be necessary to re-examine or verify GAE-related methods and their domain applications. We argue that GAE is an interpretation method that focuses on the attention process. After pointing out the working mechanism and flaws of GAE, we propose Cumulative Asset Holdings (CAH), a more reasonable Transformer interpretation method integrating both process-based and feature-based ideas from an economic zero-sum games perspective. In addition, it is worth noting that our method is applicable to models with special tokens, where existing methods may suffer from limitations. The model simplification research method and the analysis of additive operations adopted in this study may provide inspiration for other research works in XAI.
Explore similar work
Aug 3, 2026cs.CV
Most evidence on the effectiveness of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) attribution methods has been established on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), with limited investigation into whether these conclusions generalize to the diverse Vision Transformer (ViT) architectures that now dominate computer vision. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates attribution quality across five dimensions: faithfulness, localization, robustness, complexity, and computational cost. A standardized framework assesses 13 attribution methods from four algorithmic families on eight representative backbones spanning CNNs, isotropic ViTs, hierarchical transformers, hybrid architectures, and linear-attention transformers. The results show that attribution performance is strongly architecture-dependent and that rankings established on CNNs do not reliably transfer to transformer-based models. CAM-based methods achieve the highest scores under the conventional bounding-box localization metric on CNNs and most ViTs but perform poorly on linear-attention architectures. Pixel-level dense-mask evaluation further reveals that these gains largely reflect metric saturation rather than accurate localization. CAM-based methods also exhibit limited robustness on global-attention transformers, whereas attention rollout provides consistently stable explanations with poor localization. Furthermore, faithfulness correlation offers limited discrimination between attribution methods, highlighting the limitations of single-metric evaluation. These findings challenge prevailing conclusions on attribution performance and demonstrate the need for architecture-aware, multi-dimensional evaluation. The open-source code for the evaluation framework and benchmark results is available at https://github.com/Nishan-Charlie/VIT_XAI_Bench.
Sathiyamohan Nishankar, Nethmi Pathirana, Pubudu Sanjeewani +2
Apr 23, 2025cs.HC
The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.
Felix Kares, Timo Speith, Hanwei Zhang +1
Jul 6, 2026cs.LG
Graph eXplainable AI (G-XAI) is increasingly important for making Graph Neural Networks interpretable and accountable. While a growing number of explainers are available, choosing the right method and assessing the trustworthiness of its outputs remains unclear. Consistent evaluation practices and actionable guidance are still missing, hindering practical adoption. In this paper, we introduce a unified, quantitative benchmarking framework for G-XAI that requires no ground-truth assumptions. We formalize tabular explainability metrics for graph data, evaluating topological structure and node features as independent components. Our large-scale benchmarking study identifies explainers that consistently lie on the Pareto front across metric pairs and tasks, establishing robustly non-dominated solutions - while confirming that no single explainer achieves universal superiority. We distill our findings into actionable G-XAI usability guidelines to support Machine Learning practitioners in evaluating and deploying trustworthy GNN-based pipelines.
Francesco Paolo Nerini, Mirko Zaffaroni, Paolo Baracco +2