A Meta Survey of Quality Evaluation Criteria in Explanation Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13929v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 22:24:21 GMT
• Title: A Meta Survey of Quality Evaluation Criteria in Explanation Methods
• Authors: Helena L\"ofstr\"om, Karl Hammar, Ulf Johansson
• Abstract summary: Explanation methods and their evaluation have become a significant issue in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) Since the most accurate AI models are opaque with low transparency and comprehensibility, explanations are essential for bias detection and control of uncertainty. There are a plethora of criteria to choose from when evaluating explanation method quality.
• Score: 0.5801044612920815
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Explanation methods and their evaluation have become a significant issue in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) due to the recent surge of opaque AI models in decision support systems (DSS). Since the most accurate AI models are opaque with low transparency and comprehensibility, explanations are essential for bias detection and control of uncertainty. There are a plethora of criteria to choose from when evaluating explanation method quality. However, since existing criteria focus on evaluating single explanation methods, it is not obvious how to compare the quality of different methods. This lack of consensus creates a critical shortage of rigour in the field, although little is written about comparative evaluations of explanation methods. In this paper, we have conducted a semi-systematic meta-survey over fifteen literature surveys covering the evaluation of explainability to identify existing criteria usable for comparative evaluations of explanation methods. The main contribution in the paper is the suggestion to use appropriate trust as a criterion to measure the outcome of the subjective evaluation criteria and consequently make comparative evaluations possible. We also present a model of explanation quality aspects. In the model, criteria with similar definitions are grouped and related to three identified aspects of quality; model, explanation, and user. We also notice four commonly accepted criteria (groups) in the literature, covering all aspects of explanation quality: Performance, appropriate trust, explanation satisfaction, and fidelity. We suggest the model be used as a chart for comparative evaluations to create more generalisable research in explanation quality.

Related papers

• BEExAI: Benchmark to Evaluate Explainable AI [0.9176056742068812]
  We propose BEExAI, a benchmark tool that allows large-scale comparison of different post-hoc XAI methods. We argue that the need for a reliable way of measuring the quality and correctness of explanations is becoming critical.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T11:21:17Z)
• 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)
• Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations [0.6138671548064356]
  We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T21:49:28Z)
• Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attribution Methods [49.62131719441252]
  Attribution methods compute importance scores for input features to explain the output predictions of deep models. In this work, we first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill. We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
  One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method. We address this issue through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z)
• From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI [3.7592122147132776]
  We identify 12 conceptual properties, such as Compactness and Correctness, that should be evaluated for comprehensively assessing the quality of an explanation. We find that 1 in 3 papers evaluate exclusively with anecdotal evidence, and 1 in 5 papers evaluate with users. This systematic collection of evaluation methods provides researchers and practitioners with concrete tools to thoroughly validate, benchmark and compare new and existing XAI methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-20T13:23:20Z)
• Image Quality Assessment in the Modern Age [53.19271326110551]
  This tutorial provides the audience with the basic theories, methodologies, and current progresses of image quality assessment (IQA) We will first revisit several subjective quality assessment methodologies, with emphasis on how to properly select visual stimuli. Both hand-engineered and (deep) learning-based methods will be covered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T02:38:46Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• Towards Question-Answering as an Automatic Metric for Evaluating the Content Quality of a Summary [65.37544133256499]
  We propose a metric to evaluate the content quality of a summary using question-answering (QA) We demonstrate the experimental benefits of QA-based metrics through an analysis of our proposed metric, QAEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-01T15:33:09Z)
• 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)
• A Framework for Evaluation of Machine Reading Comprehension Gold Standards [7.6250852763032375]
  This paper proposes a unifying framework to investigate the present linguistic features, required reasoning and background knowledge and factual correctness. The absence of features that contribute towards lexical ambiguity, the varying factual correctness of the expected answers and the presence of lexical cues, all of which potentially lower the reading comprehension complexity and quality of the evaluation data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-10T11:30:22Z)

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.