Evaluation of post-hoc interpretability methods in time-series classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05656v2
• Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 16:56:46 GMT
• Title: Evaluation of post-hoc interpretability methods in time-series classification
• Authors: Hugues Turbé, Mina Bjelogrlic, Christian Lovis, Gianmarco Mengaldo,
• Abstract summary: We propose a framework with quantitative metrics to assess the performance of existing post-hoc interpretability methods. We show that several drawbacks identified in the literature are addressed, namely dependence on human judgement, retraining, and shift in the data distribution when occluding samples. The proposed methodology and quantitative metrics can be used to understand the reliability of interpretability methods results obtained in practical applications.
• Score: 0.6249768559720122
• License:
• Abstract: Post-hoc interpretability methods are critical tools to explain neural-network results. Several post-hoc methods have emerged in recent years, but when applied to a given task, they produce different results, raising the question of which method is the most suitable to provide correct post-hoc interpretability. To understand the performance of each method, quantitative evaluation of interpretability methods is essential. However, currently available frameworks have several drawbacks which hinders the adoption of post-hoc interpretability methods, especially in high-risk sectors. In this work, we propose a framework with quantitative metrics to assess the performance of existing post-hoc interpretability methods in particular in time series classification. We show that several drawbacks identified in the literature are addressed, namely dependence on human judgement, retraining, and shift in the data distribution when occluding samples. We additionally design a synthetic dataset with known discriminative features and tunable complexity. The proposed methodology and quantitative metrics can be used to understand the reliability of interpretability methods results obtained in practical applications. In turn, they can be embedded within operational workflows in critical fields that require accurate interpretability results for e.g., regulatory policies.

Related papers

• Pretraining Data Detection for Large Language Models: A Divergence-based Calibration Method [108.56493934296687]
  We introduce a divergence-based calibration method, inspired by the divergence-from-randomness concept, to calibrate token probabilities for pretraining data detection. We have developed a Chinese-language benchmark, PatentMIA, to assess the performance of detection approaches for LLMs on Chinese text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T07:55:35Z)
• Revisiting the robustness of post-hoc interpretability methods [1.5020330976600738]
  Post-hoc interpretability methods play a critical role in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) Different post-hoc interpretability methods often provide different results, casting doubts on their accuracy. We propose an approach and two new metrics to provide a fine-grained assessment of post-hoc interpretability methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:55:52Z)
• Beyond ELBOs: A Large-Scale Evaluation of Variational Methods for Sampling [14.668634411361307]
  We introduce a benchmark that evaluates sampling methods using a standardized task suite and a broad range of performance criteria. We study existing metrics for quantifying mode collapse and introduce novel metrics for this purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T16:23:33Z)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• Interpretation Quality Score for Measuring the Quality of interpretability methods [12.659475399995717]
  There currently exists no widely-accepted metric to evaluate the quality of explanations generated by interpretability methods. We propose a novel metric for quantifying the quality of explanations generated by interpretability methods. We compute the metric on three NLP tasks using six interpretability methods and present our results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T17:57:55Z)
• Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods [77.1487219861185]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We also propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T20:50:17Z)
• Discriminative Attribution from Counterfactuals [64.94009515033984]
  We present a method for neural network interpretability by combining feature attribution with counterfactual explanations. We show that this method can be used to quantitatively evaluate the performance of feature attribution methods in an objective manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T00:53:34Z)
• On Sample Based Explanation Methods for NLP:Efficiency, Faithfulness, and Semantic Evaluation [23.72825603188359]
  We can improve the interpretability of explanations by allowing arbitrary text sequences as the explanation unit. We propose a semantic-based evaluation metric that can better align with humans' judgment of explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-09T00:49:56Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)
• On quantitative aspects of model interpretability [0.0]
  We argue that methods along these dimensions can be imputed to two conceptual parts, namely the extractor and the actual explainability method. We experimentally validate our metrics on different benchmark tasks and show how they can be used to guide a practitioner in the selection of the most appropriate method for the task at hand.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-15T10:05:05Z)
• Interpretable Off-Policy Evaluation in Reinforcement Learning by Highlighting Influential Transitions [48.91284724066349]
  Off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning offers the chance of using observational data to improve future outcomes in domains such as healthcare and education. Traditional measures such as confidence intervals may be insufficient due to noise, limited data and confounding. We develop a method that could serve as a hybrid human-AI system, to enable human experts to analyze the validity of policy evaluation estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T00:26:43Z)

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.