Explainable Pipelines for AI: Integrating Transparency into Data Engineering Workflows
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70153/IJCMI/2022.14302Keywords:
Explainable AI, Data Engineering, Transparency, Interpretability, Causal Inference, Data Lineage, Ethical AI, Feature Engineering, Data Provenance, Responsible AIAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly utilized in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and governance, where transparency and accountability are essential. While explainable AI (XAI) research has primarily focused on model interpretability, the data engineering processes—including data ingestion, preprocessing, and feature engineering—remain largely opaque, posing challenges to trust, reproducibility, and ethical compliance. To bridge this gap, we propose an innovative Explainable Data Engineering (XDE) framework that integrates explainability throughout the entire data pipeline by leveraging techniques from explainable machine learning, causal inference, data provenance, and symbolic reasoning. We validate the framework using two real-world datasets: a breast cancer diagnosis dataset and a financial credit scoring dataset. In the healthcare setting, combining SHAP values with feature lineage graphs enabled explanation of 98% of model decisions in terms of data transformations, while achieving a high classification accuracy of 93.5%, closely matching the traditional opaque pipeline. Medical experts rated the clarity of explanations highly, with an average score of 4.7 out of 5. For the financial dataset, the XDE pipeline successfully identified data drifts and anomalies overlooked by conventional methods, reducing false loan approvals by 12%. Narrative explanations facilitated compliance audits, enhancing stakeholder trust. Although the pipeline increased time-to-deployment by approximately 8%, it significantly reduced debugging time by 35%, improving maintainability. These results demonstrate that XDE effectively enhances transparency, auditability, and stakeholder confidence without sacrificing performance, offering a practical solution for responsible AI deployment through interpretable data pipelines.
Downloads
References
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. fairmlbook.org.
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020). Explainable machine learning in deployment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–26.
Shylaja, “Self-Learning Data Models: Leveraging AI for Continuous Adaptation and Performance Improvement”, IJCMI, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 969–981, Apr. 2021.
Singamsetty, S. (2020). Retinal Twins: Leveraging Binocular Symmetry with Siamese Networks for Enhanced Diabetic Retinopathy Detection. tojqi. net.
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Dauméé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2018). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92.
A. Medisetty, “Intelligent Data Flow Automation for AI Systems via Advanced Engineering Practices”, IJCMI, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 957–968, Apr. 2021.
Hind, M. (2019). Explaining explainable AI. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 25(3), 16–19.
Holland, S., Hosny, A., Newman, S., Joseph, J., & Chmielinski, K. (2018). The dataset nutrition label. Proceedings of the Data Transparency Lab Workshop.
S. Singamsetty, “AI-Based Data Governance: Empowering Trust and Compliance in Complex Data Ecosystems”, IJCMI, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1007–1017, Dec. 2021.
Kandel, S., Paepcke, A., Hellerstein, J., & Heer, J. (2011). Research directions in data wrangling. Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12), 2319–2328.
Kenthapadi, K., Le, B., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2017). Privacy and explainability: The effects of data protection on model interpretability. Proceedings of the ACM FATML Workshop.
Lakkaraju, H., Bach, S. H., & Leskovec, J. (2017). Interpretable decision sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1), 2355–2390.
Miao, X., Wu, Y., Wang, J., Gao, Y., Mao, X., & Yin, J. (2021). Towards causal representation learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5), 612–634.
Pääkkönen, P., & Pakkala, D. (2015). Reference architecture and classification of technologies, products, and services for big data systems. Big Data Research, 2(4), 166–186.
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). "Why should I trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135–1144.
Sambasivan, N., Kapania, S., Highfill, H., Akrong, D., Paritosh, P., & Aroyo, L. M. (2021). "Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work": Data cascades in high-stakes AI. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15.
Schelter, S., Lange, D., Schmidt, P., Celikel, M., Biessmann, F., & Grafberger, A. (2018). Automating large-scale data quality verification. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 11(12), 1781–1794.
Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., Davydov, E., Phillips, T., Ebner, D., Chaudhary, V., Young, M., Crespo, J.-F., & Dennison, D. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28, 2503–2511.
Siddiqui, M. A., Lee, A., & Karimi, S. (2016). Data quality for machine learning tasks. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1–4.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887.
