ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Comparative Analysis of Explainable AI (XAI) Techniques for Transparent and Reliable Image Classification.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating the trustworthiness of black-box machine learning models remains a significant methodological challenge. Their lack of transparency and interpretability limits applicability, because stakeholders often seek transparency before trusting the results of black-box machine learning models. Explainable AI (XAI) methods provide for human-understandable justifications and informed decision-making of these black-box architectures. Therefore, it is imperative to select the proper XAI model tailored to specific tasks. In this research, we focus on examining four XAI techniques: PEEK, LRP, GRAD-CAM, and LIME to understand how they perform against each other for image classification tasks. We evaluate the performance, robustness, generalizability, noise stability, and computational efficiency of these methods using a globally recognized dataset. With 7390 images, the Oxford IIT pet dataset provides a comprehensive resource for training a custom Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and VGG16, enabling a consistent evaluation of each XAI method. First, we analyze the saliency maps of the input images and observe the regions predicted by these XAI methods, and then leverage a noise analysis approach to evaluate their performance in terms of accuracy. We further explore the robustness, run-time, and "faithfulness" metrics of each XAI method. In general, we find that these methods can identify a set of input-data features that are critical for accurate classification but also intuitive, such as the outline, face, and eyes of subjects. However, our analysis reveals only marginal consensus among XAI methods in identifying those critical features. Grad-CAM demonstrates strong robustness and stability in VGG16, but the performance on the shallow CNN model remained inconsistent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.