mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Scientific Theory of a Black-Box: A Life Cycle-Scale XAI Framework Based on Constructive Empiricism

arXiv 2602.02215 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (XAI) offers a growing number of algorithms that aim to answer specific questions about black-box models. What is missing is a principled way to consolidate explanatory information about a fixed black-box model into a persistent, auditable artefact, that accompanies the black-box throughout its life cycle. We address this gap by introducing the notion of a scientific theory of a black (SToBB). Grounded in Constructive Empiricism, a SToBB fulfils three obligations: (i) empirical adequacy with respect to all available observations of black-box behaviour, (ii) adaptability via explicit update commitments that restore adequacy when new observations arrive, and (iii) auditability through transparent documentation of assumptions, construction choices, and update behaviour. We operationalise these obligations as a general framework that specifies an extensible observation base, a traceable hypothesis class, algorithmic components for construction and revision, and documentation sufficient for third-party assessment. Explanations for concrete stakeholder needs are then obtained by querying the maintained record through interfaces, rather than by producing isolated method outputs. As a proof of concept, we instantiate a complete SToBB for a neural-network classifier on a tabular task and introduce the Constructive Box Theoriser (CoBoT) algorithm, an online procedure that constructs and maintains an empirically adequate rule-based surrogate as observations accumulate. Together, these contributions position SToBBs as a life cycle-scale, inspectable point of reference that supports consistent, reusable analyses and systematic external scrutiny.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2026.

Builds on

18 of 38 references.

References · 18

  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. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  4. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  5. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  6. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
  7. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  8. 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
  9. 2020Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiencescited by 251
  10. 2019One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniquescited by 164
  11. 2019Predictive Multiplicity in Classificationcited by 162
  12. 2021What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Researchcited by 119
6 more
  1. 2018Interpretable to Whom? A Role-based Model for Analyzing Interpretable Machine Learning Systemscited by 47
  2. 2024Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Needs, Techniques, Applications, and Future Directioncited by 46
  3. 2017Interpreting Blackbox Models via Model Extractioncited by 43
  4. 2021Question-Driven Design Process for Explainable AI User Experiencescited by 31
  5. 2023Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence -- AI Assessment Catalogcited by 4
  6. 2021Learning Weakly Convex Sets in Metric Spacescited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.