mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Multi-Dimensional Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index and Scoring Framework

arXiv 2605.14550 ↗First posted 14 May 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence in high-stakes tabular domains cannot be evaluated by predictive performance alone, yet current practice still assesses explainability, fairness, robustness, privacy, and sustainability mostly in isolation. We propose the Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index (MIRAI), a unified evaluation framework that measures tabular models across these five dimensions under a controlled comparison setting and aggregates them into a single score. MIRAI combines established metrics through normalized and direction-aligned dimension scores, which enables direct comparison across models with different architectural and computational profiles. Experiments on healthcare, financial, and socioeconomic datasets show that higher predictive performance does not necessarily imply better overall integrity and responsibility. In several cases, simpler models achieve a stronger cross-dimensional balance than more complex deep tabular architectures. MIRAI provides a compact and practical basis for responsible model selection in regulated settings.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

Builds on

27 of 43 references.

References · 27

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
  3. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  4. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
  5. 2021Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Datacited by 740
  6. 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 535
  7. 2019Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learningcited by 521
  8. 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
  9. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  10. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 314
  11. 2023When Do Neural Nets Outperform Boosted Trees on Tabular Data?cited by 223
  12. 2018Adversarial Robustness Toolbox v1.0.0cited by 215
15 more
  1. 2020Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanationscited by 188
  2. 2022Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyondcited by 171
  3. 2019When Explanations Lie: Why Many Modified BP Attributions Failcited by 92
  4. 2023Fairlearn: Assessing and Improving Fairness of AI Systemscited by 74
  5. 2022Framework for Evaluating Faithfulness of Local Explanationscited by 55
  6. 2020On Adversarial Bias and the Robustness of Fair Machine Learningcited by 36
  7. 2024LangXAI: Integrating Large Vision Models for Generating Textual Explanations to Enhance Explainability in Visual Perception Taskscited by 13
  8. 2021SHAPr: An Efficient and Versatile Membership Privacy Risk Metric for Machine Learningcited by 10
  9. 2024XEdgeAI: A Human-centered Industrial Inspection Framework with Data-centric Explainable Edge AI Approachcited by 8
  10. 2025Motion2Meaning: A Clinician-Centered Framework for Contestable LLM in Parkinson's Disease Gait Interpretationcited by 6
  11. 2023Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence -- AI Assessment Catalogcited by 4
  12. 2025ODExAI: A Comprehensive Object Detection Explainable AI Evaluationcited by 3
  13. 2024Navigating the EU AI Act: A Methodological Approach to Compliance for Safety-critical Productscited by 2
  14. 2024MACeIP: A Multimodal Ambient Context-enriched Intelligence Platform in Smart Citiescited by 2
  15. 2025RAISE: A Unified Framework for Responsible AI Scoring and Evaluationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.