Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper argues that the current fragmentation and challenges in Explainable AI (XAI) stem from a failure to ground explanations in the underlying causal model of the system. It posits that XAI queries should be reframed as causal inquiries, demonstrating the necessity and sufficiency of causal models for achieving true explainability. The authors advocate for a shift towards advanced concept and causal discovery methods to resolve the persistent uncertainty in the field.
XAI's persistent failures aren't due to a lack of ground truth, but a failure to recognize that ground truth *is* the underlying causal model.
The demand for Explainable AI (XAI) has triggered an explosion of methods, producing a landscape so fragmented that we now rely on surveys of surveys. Yet, fundamental challenges persist: conflicting metrics, failed sanity checks, and unresolved debates over robustness and fairness. The only consensus on how to achieve explainability is a lack of one. This has led many to point to the absence of a ground truth for defining ``the'' correct explanation as the main culprit. This position paper posits that the persistent discord in XAI arises not from an absent ground truth but from a ground truth that exists, albeit as an elusive and challenging target: the causal model that governs the relevant system. By reframing XAI queries about data, models, or decisions as causal inquiries, we prove the necessity and sufficiency of causal models for XAI. We contend that without this causal grounding, XAI remains unmoored. Ultimately, we encourage the community to converge around advanced concept and causal discovery to escape this entrenched uncertainty.
