Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Which LIME should I trust? Concepts, Challenges, and Solutions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.24365 v1 pith:K2X33F6Z submitted 2025-03-31 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords limeapproacheschallengesconceptsenhancementsexplanationsissuesmodel-agnostic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As neural networks become dominant in essential systems, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in fostering trust and detecting potential misbehavior of opaque models. LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) is among the most prominent model-agnostic approaches, generating explanations by approximating the behavior of black-box models around specific instances. Despite its popularity, LIME faces challenges related to fidelity, stability, and applicability to domain-specific problems. Numerous adaptations and enhancements have been proposed to address these issues, but the growing number of developments can be overwhelming, complicating efforts to navigate LIME-related research. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey to comprehensively explore and collect LIME's foundational concepts and known limitations. We categorize and compare its various enhancements, offering a structured taxonomy based on intermediate steps and key issues. Our analysis provides a holistic overview of advancements in LIME, guiding future research and helping practitioners identify suitable approaches. Additionally, we provide a continuously updated interactive website (https://patrick-knab.github.io/which-lime-to-trust/), offering a concise and accessible overview of the survey.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ConceptSMILE: Auditing the Trustworthiness of Concept-Based Explainable AI

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A perturbation-and-surrogate audit shows MedSAM and VLM retinal concept explanations have pathway- and concept-specific reliability, not automatic trustworthiness.

Pith tools