Towards Benchmarking the Utility of Explanations for Model Debugging

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.04505v1
• Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 16:57:33 GMT
• Title: Towards Benchmarking the Utility of Explanations for Model Debugging
• Authors: Maximilian Idahl, Lijun Lyu, Ujwal Gadiraju, Avishek Anand
• Abstract summary: We argue the need for a benchmark to facilitate evaluations of the utility of post-hoc explanation methods. We highlight that such a benchmark facilitates not only assessing the effectiveness of explanations but also their efficiency.
• Score: 13.135013586592585
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Post-hoc explanation methods are an important class of approaches that help understand the rationale underlying a trained model's decision. But how useful are they for an end-user towards accomplishing a given task? In this vision paper, we argue the need for a benchmark to facilitate evaluations of the utility of post-hoc explanation methods. As a first step to this end, we enumerate desirable properties that such a benchmark should possess for the task of debugging text classifiers. Additionally, we highlight that such a benchmark facilitates not only assessing the effectiveness of explanations but also their efficiency.

Related papers

• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought Prompting [80.9896041501715]
  Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T18:02:34Z)
• Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning [77.83124315634386]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in learning from explanations in prompts. This work aims to better understand the mechanisms by which explanations are used for in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T04:40:47Z)
• The Solvability of Interpretability Evaluation Metrics [7.3709604810699085]
  Feature attribution methods are often evaluated on metrics such as comprehensiveness and sufficiency. In this paper, we highlight an intriguing property of these metrics: their solvability. We present a series of investigations showing that this beam search explainer is generally comparable or favorable to current choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-18T02:52:03Z)
• A Unified Study of Machine Learning Explanation Evaluation Metrics [16.4602888153369]
  Many existing metrics for explanations are introduced by researchers as by-products of their proposed explanation techniques to demonstrate the advantages of their methods. We claim that the lack of acknowledged and justified metrics results in chaos in benchmarking these explanation methods. We propose guidelines in dealing with the problems in evaluating machine learning explanation and encourage researchers to carefully deal with these problems when developing explanation techniques and metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-27T10:12:06Z)
• Diagnostics-Guided Explanation Generation [32.97930902104502]
  Explanations shed light on a machine learning model's rationales and can aid in identifying deficiencies in its reasoning process. We show how to optimise for several diagnostic properties when training a model to generate sentence-level explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-08T16:27:52Z)
• 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)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)

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.