Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods

Summary

arXiv:2609.30397v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods is a challenging task due to the lack of reliable evaluation procedures and, in particular, the absence of ground truth explanations. In the literature, existing evaluation approaches typically assess explanations by measuring their fidelity with respect to the predictions of a black-box model. However, such evaluation strategies only quantify the degree to which an explanation reproduces the model's output, without ensuring that the explanation correctly reflects the underlying decision process. As a consequence, different explanations may achieve similar fidelity scores while providing inconsistent or misleading interpretations of the model behavior. In this paper, we propose a f…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau, Francesco Spinnato, Riccardo Guidotti
A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 24 Sep 2026]

Title:A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods

View a PDF of the paper titled A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods, by Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Evaluating explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods is a challenging task due to the lack of reliable evaluation procedures and, in particular, the absence of ground truth explanations. In the literature, existing evaluation approaches typically assess explanations by measuring their fidelity with respect to the predictions of a black-box model. However, such evaluation strategies only quantify the degree to which an explanation reproduces the model's output, without ensuring that the explanation correctly reflects the underlying decision process. As a consequence, different explanations may achieve similar fidelity scores while providing inconsistent or misleading interpretations of the model behavior. In this paper, we propose a framework for the evaluation of XAI methods based on synthetic ground truth. The proposed approach relies on controlled interventions to generate synthetic datasets in which the importance of input components can be determined by design. This enables the construction of ground truth explanations that are directly aligned with the behavior of the model under analysis. The framework is instantiated across three data domains, namely binary images, tabular data, and time series, allowing a comprehensive assessment of explanation methods in heterogeneous settings. Experimental results obtained by evaluating nine widely used XAI methods show significant limitations in current techniques and highlight the importance of synthetic, intervention-based benchmarks for a reliable assessment of explanation quality.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.30397 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.30397v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30397

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Miquel Miró-Nicolau [view email] [v1] Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:04:03 UTC (975 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods, by Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.30397v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods is a challenging task due to the lack of reliable evaluation procedure…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.