José Luís Pais Ribeiro

José Ribeiro, Níkolas Carneiro, Ronnie Alves

Strategies based on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) have promoted better human interpretability of the results of black box models. This opens up the possibility of questioning whether explanations created by XAI methods meet human expectations. The XAI methods being currently used (Ciu, Dalex, Eli5, Lofo, Shap, and Skater) provide various forms of explanations, including global rankings of relevance of features, which allow for an overview of how the model is explained as a result of its inputs and outputs. These methods provide for an increase in the explainability of the model and a greater interpretability grounded on the context of the problem. Intending to shed light on the explanations generated by XAI methods and their interpretations, this research addresses a real-world classification problem related to homicide prediction, already peer-validated, replicated its proposed black box model and used 6 different XAI methods to generate explanations and 6 different human experts. The results were generated through calculations of correlations, comparative analysis and identification of relationships between all ranks of features produced. It was found that even though it is a model that is difficult to explain, 75\% of the expectations of human experts were met, with approximately 48\% agreement between results from XAI methods and human experts. The results allow for answering questions such as: "Are the Expectation of Interpretation generated among different human experts similar?", "Do the different XAI methods generate similar explanations for the proposed problem?", "Can explanations generated by XAI methods meet human expectation of Interpretations?", and "Can Explanations and Expectations of Interpretation work together?".

Lucas Cardoso, Vitor Santos, José Ribeiro et al.

Benchmarking is a fundamental practice in machine learning (ML) for comparing the performance of classification algorithms. However, traditional evaluation methods often overlook a critical aspect: the joint consideration of dataset complexity and an algorithm's ability to generalize. Without this dual perspective, assessments may favor models that perform well on easy instances while failing to capture their true robustness. To address this limitation, this study introduces a novel evaluation methodology that combines Item Response Theory (IRT) with the Glicko-2 rating system, originally developed to measure player strength in competitive games. IRT assesses classifier ability based on performance over difficult instances, while Glicko-2 updates performance metrics - such as rating, deviation, and volatility - via simulated tournaments between classifiers. This combined approach provides a fairer and more nuanced measure of algorithm capability. A case study using the OpenML-CC18 benchmark showed that only 15% of the datasets are truly challenging and that a reduced subset with 50% of the original datasets offers comparable evaluation power. Among the algorithms tested, Random Forest achieved the highest ability score. The results highlight the importance of improving benchmark design by focusing on dataset quality and adopting evaluation strategies that reflect both difficulty and classifier proficiency.