Benchmarking and Survey of Explanation Methods for Black Box Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.13076v1
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 18:50:29 GMT
- Title: Benchmarking and Survey of Explanation Methods for Black Box Models
- Authors: Francesco Bodria, Fosca Giannotti, Riccardo Guidotti, Francesca
Naretto, Dino Pedreschi, Salvatore Rinzivillo
- Abstract summary: We provide a categorization of explanation methods based on the type of explanation returned.
We present the most recent and widely used explainers, and we show a visual comparison among explanations and a quantitative benchmarking.
- Score: 9.747543620322956
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: The widespread adoption of black-box models in Artificial Intelligence has
enhanced the need for explanation methods to reveal how these obscure models
reach specific decisions. Retrieving explanations is fundamental to unveil
possible biases and to resolve practical or ethical issues. Nowadays, the
literature is full of methods with different explanations. We provide a
categorization of explanation methods based on the type of explanation
returned. We present the most recent and widely used explainers, and we show a
visual comparison among explanations and a quantitative benchmarking.
Related papers
- Selective Explanations [14.312717332216073]
A machine learning model is trained to predict feature attribution scores with only one inference.
Despite their efficiency, amortized explainers can produce inaccurate predictions and misleading explanations.
We propose selective explanations, a novel feature attribution method that detects when amortized explainers generate low-quality explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-29T23:08:31Z) - CNN-based explanation ensembling for dataset, representation and explanations evaluation [1.1060425537315088]
We explore the potential of ensembling explanations generated by deep classification models using convolutional model.
Through experimentation and analysis, we aim to investigate the implications of combining explanations to uncover a more coherent and reliable patterns of the model's behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-16T08:39:29Z) - An Axiomatic Approach to Model-Agnostic Concept Explanations [67.84000759813435]
We propose an approach to concept explanations that satisfy three natural axioms: linearity, recursivity, and similarity.
We then establish connections with previous concept explanation methods, offering insight into their varying semantic meanings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-12T20:53:35Z) - Learning with Explanation Constraints [91.23736536228485]
We provide a learning theoretic framework to analyze how explanations can improve the learning of our models.
We demonstrate the benefits of our approach over a large array of synthetic and real-world experiments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-25T15:06:47Z) - REVEL Framework to measure Local Linear Explanations for black-box
models: Deep Learning Image Classification case of study [12.49538398746092]
We propose a procedure called REVEL to evaluate different aspects concerning the quality of explanations with a theoretically coherent development.
The experiments have been carried out on image four datasets as benchmark where we show REVEL's descriptive and analytical power.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-11T12:15:36Z) - On the Objective Evaluation of Post Hoc Explainers [10.981508361941335]
Modern trends in machine learning research have led to algorithms that are increasingly intricate to the degree that they are considered to be black boxes.
In an effort to reduce the opacity of decisions, methods have been proposed to construe the inner workings of such models in a human-comprehensible manner.
We propose a framework for the evaluation of post hoc explainers on ground truth that is directly derived from the additive structure of a model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-15T19:06:51Z) - Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable
Explanations [64.85696493596821]
In computer vision applications, generative counterfactual methods indicate how to perturb a model's input to change its prediction.
We propose a counterfactual method that learns a perturbation in a disentangled latent space that is constrained using a diversity-enforcing loss.
Our model improves the success rate of producing high-quality valuable explanations when compared to previous state-of-the-art methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-18T12:57:34Z) - Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models.
Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space.
Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z) - Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid
students? [103.05037537415811]
We formalize the value of explanations using a student-teacher paradigm that measures the extent to which explanations improve student models in learning.
Unlike many prior proposals to evaluate explanations, our approach cannot be easily gamed, enabling principled, scalable, and automatic evaluation of attributions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-12-01T23:40:21Z) - Model extraction from counterfactual explanations [68.8204255655161]
We show how an adversary can leverage the information provided by counterfactual explanations to build high-fidelity and high-accuracy model extraction attacks.
Our attack enables the adversary to build a faithful copy of a target model by accessing its counterfactual explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-09-03T19:02:55Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.