mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Methodology and Software Architecture to Support Explainability-by-Design

arXiv 2206.06251 ↗First posted 13 Jun 2022cs.SE cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Algorithms play a crucial role in many technological systems that control or affect various aspects of our lives. As a result, providing explanations for their decisions to address the needs of users and organisations is increasingly expected by laws, regulations, codes of conduct, and the public. However, as laws and regulations do not prescribe how to meet such expectations, organisations are often left to devise their own approaches to explainability, inevitably increasing the cost of compliance and good governance. Hence, we envision Explainability-by-Design, a holistic methodology characterised by proactive measures to include explanation capability in the design of decision-making systems. The methodology consists of three phases: (A) Explanation Requirement Analysis, (B) Explanation Technical Design, and (C) Explanation Validation. This paper describes phase (B), a technical workflow to implement explanation capability from requirements elicited by domain experts for a specific application context. Outputs of this phase are a set of configurations, allowing a reusable explanation service to exploit logs provided by the target application to create provenance traces of the application's decisions. The provenance then can be queried to extract relevant data points, which can be used in explanation plans to construct explanations personalised to their consumers. Following the workflow, organisations can design their decision-making systems to produce explanations that meet the specified requirements. To facilitate the process, we present a software architecture with reusable components to incorporate the resulting explanation capability into an application. Finally, we applied the workflow to two application scenarios and measured the associated development costs. It was shown that the approach is tractable in terms of development time, which can be as low as two hours per sentence.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2022.

Builds on

14 of 52 references.

References · 14

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
  4. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  5. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  6. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  7. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 970
  8. 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 364
  9. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 341
  10. 2021Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiencescited by 123
  11. 2020Human-centered Explainable AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approachcited by 90
  12. 2021Software Engineering for AI-Based Systems: A Surveycited by 68
2 more
  1. 2020Explainable AI for Software Engineeringcited by 8
  2. 2016Building Efficient Query Engines in a High-Level Languagecited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.