Explanations Based on Item Response Theory (eXirt): A Model-Specific Method to Explain Tree-Ensemble Model in Trust Perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, XAI researchers have been formalizing proposals and developing new methods to explain black box models, with no general consensus in the community on which method to use to explain these models, with this choice being almost directly linked to the popularity of a specific method. Methods such as Ciu, Dalex, Eli5, Lofo, Shap and Skater emerged with the proposal to explain black box models through global rankings of feature relevance, which based on different methodologies, generate global explanations that indicate how the model's inputs explain its predictions. In this context, 41 datasets, 4 tree-ensemble algorithms (Light Gradient Boosting, CatBoost, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting), and 6 XAI methods were used to support the launch of a new XAI method, called eXirt, based on Item Response Theory - IRT and aimed at tree-ensemble black box models that use tabular data referring to binary classification problems. In the first set of analyses, the 164 global feature relevance ranks of the eXirt were compared with 984 ranks of the other XAI methods present in the literature, seeking to highlight their similarities and differences. In a second analysis, exclusive explanations of the eXirt based on Explanation-by-example were presented that help in understanding the model trust. Thus, it was verified that eXirt is able to generate global explanations of tree-ensemble models and also local explanations of instances of models through IRT, showing how this consolidated theory can be used in machine learning in order to obtain explainable and reliable models.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2022.
Builds on
12 of 60 references.
References · 12
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,552
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
- 2016Visualizing the Effects of Predictor Variables in Black Box Supervised Learning Modelscited by 213
- 2020One Explanation Does Not Fit All: The Promise of Interactive Explanations for Machine Learning Transparencycited by 64
- 2020dalex: Responsible Machine Learning with Interactive Explainability and Fairness in Pythoncited by 40
- 2020Decoding machine learning benchmarkscited by 8
- 2021Does Dataset Complexity Matters for Model Explainers?cited by 4
- 2022Explanation-by-Example Based on Item Response Theorycited by 4
- 2020Prediction of Homicides in Urban Centers: A Machine Learning Approachcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 2.
4 papers.
- 2024How Reliable and Stable are Explanations of XAI Methods?cited by 2
- 2024Standing on the shoulders of giantscited by 0
- 2025Enhancing Classifier Evaluation: A Fairer Benchmarking Strategy Based on Ability and Robustnesscited by 0
- 2025Beyond Random Sampling: Instance Quality-Based Data Partitioning via Item Response Theorycited by 0
- 2025Beyond Random Sampling: Instance Quality-Based Data Partitioning via Item Response Theory14 Aug 2025
- 2025Enhancing Classifier Evaluation: A Fairer Benchmarking Strategy Based on Ability and Robustness13 Apr 2025
- 2024Standing on the shoulders of giants5 Sep 2024
- 2024How Reliable and Stable are Explanations of XAI Methods?3 Jul 2024