TY - JOUR
T1 - Which Explanation for Whom and When? A Stakeholder-Oriented Taxonomy of Global, Local, Counterfactual, Causal, Interactive, and Adaptive Explanations
AU - Laura Mendez
AU - Hiroshi Sato
AU - Anna Kowalczyk
JF - Journal of Trustworthy and Explainable Intelligent Systems
JO - J Trustworthy Explain Intell Syst
Y1 - 2025
VL - 4
IS - 2
SP - 77
N2 - Explainable artificial intelligence increasingly offers diverse ways to communicate how intelligent systems operate, yet explanation selection is still frequently driven by method availability or model compatibility rather than stakeholder need. This article develops a stakeholder-oriented taxonomy for determining which explanation type may be appropriate for whom, at which decision moment, and for what purpose. Explanation is treated as a multiform system capability encompassing different scopes, reasoning functions, presentation modes, interaction patterns, and quality requirements. The taxonomy distinguishes global explanations concerned with model-level behaviour from local explanations directed at individual predictions, while clarifying the roles and limitations of feature attribution, saliency, surrogate models, rule extraction, transparency, fidelity, stability, and completeness. It further differentiates counterfactual, contrastive, and causal explanations according to their contributions to alternative reasoning, actionability, contestability, recourse, and accountability. Example-based, case-based, prototype, rule-based, natural-language, interactive, dialogue-based, adaptive, and personalized explanations are positioned according to user expertise, cognitive accessibility, task demands, and interaction context. The proposed taxonomy connects explanation families with stakeholder roles, pre-decision, during-decision, and post-decision timing, explanation purpose, decision consequence, uncertainty, trust calibration, human oversight, and accountability requirements. Its central contribution is a structured selection logic that moves beyond technical method categories toward stakeholder–purpose–timing–risk alignment. The taxonomy can guide explanation design and evaluation but does not independently establish understanding, fairness, recourse, accountability, legal sufficiency, trustworthiness, or deployment readiness. Stakeholder-specific and decision-context-specific validation therefore remains necessary.
UR - https://tipublications.com/b045363804
ER -