# Evaluation Cards for XAI Metrics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04410 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.04410/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.05100/) (2019)
- [Explainable AI (XAI) in Image Segmentation in Medicine, Industry, and Beyond: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01636/) (2024)
- [Unifying VXAI: A Systematic Review and Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15408/) (2025)
- [On the Design and Evaluation of Human-centered Explainable AI Systems: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.12201/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.