OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11104v5
• Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:38:44 GMT
• Title: OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanations
• Authors: Chirag Agarwal, Dan Ley, Satyapriya Krishna, Eshika Saxena, Martin Pawelczyk, Nari Johnson, Isha Puri, Marinka Zitnik, Himabindu Lakkaraju,
• Abstract summary: We introduce OpenXAI, a comprehensive and open-source framework for evaluating and benchmarking post hoc explanation methods. OpenXAI comprises of the following key components: (i) a flexible synthetic data generator and a collection of diverse real-world datasets, pre-trained models, and state-of-the-art feature attribution methods, and (ii) open-source implementations of eleven quantitative metrics for evaluating faithfulness, stability (robustness), and fairness of explanation methods.
• Score: 41.37573216839717
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While several types of post hoc explanation methods have been proposed in recent literature, there is very little work on systematically benchmarking these methods. Here, we introduce OpenXAI, a comprehensive and extensible open-source framework for evaluating and benchmarking post hoc explanation methods. OpenXAI comprises of the following key components: (i) a flexible synthetic data generator and a collection of diverse real-world datasets, pre-trained models, and state-of-the-art feature attribution methods, and (ii) open-source implementations of eleven quantitative metrics for evaluating faithfulness, stability (robustness), and fairness of explanation methods, in turn providing comparisons of several explanation methods across a wide variety of metrics, models, and datasets. OpenXAI is easily extensible, as users can readily evaluate custom explanation methods and incorporate them into our leaderboards. Overall, OpenXAI provides an automated end-to-end pipeline that not only simplifies and standardizes the evaluation of post hoc explanation methods, but also promotes transparency and reproducibility in benchmarking these methods. While the first release of OpenXAI supports only tabular datasets, the explanation methods and metrics that we consider are general enough to be applicable to other data modalities. OpenXAI datasets and models, implementations of state-of-the-art explanation methods and evaluation metrics, are publicly available at this GitHub link.

Related papers

• A Closer Look at Deep Learning on Tabular Data [52.50778536274327]
  Tabular data is prevalent across various domains in machine learning. Deep Neural Network (DNN)-based methods have shown promising performance comparable to tree-based ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T04:24:07Z)
• EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods [1.6383837447674294]
  This paper brings together various benchmark datasets and novel performance metrics in an initial benchmarking platform. Our datasets incorporate ground truth explanations for class-conditional features. This platform assesses the performance of post-hoc XAI methods in the quality of the explanations they produce.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:16:06Z)
• Precise Benchmarking of Explainable AI Attribution Methods [0.0]
  We propose a novel evaluation approach for benchmarking state-of-the-art XAI attribution methods. Our proposal consists of a synthetic classification model accompanied by its derived ground truth explanations. Our experimental results provide novel insights into the performance of Guided-Backprop and Smoothgrad XAI methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T17:03:32Z)
• Explanations Based on Item Response Theory (eXirt): A Model-Specific Method to Explain Tree-Ensemble Model in Trust Perspective [0.4749981032986242]
  Methods such as Ciu, Dalex, Eli5, Lofo, Shap and Skater emerged to explain black box models. Xirt is able to generate global explanations of tree-ensemble models and also local explanations of instances of models through IRT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T15:30:14Z)
• What and How of Machine Learning Transparency: Building Bespoke Explainability Tools with Interoperable Algorithmic Components [77.87794937143511]
  This paper introduces a collection of hands-on training materials for explaining data-driven predictive models. These resources cover the three core building blocks of this technique: interpretable representation composition, data sampling and explanation generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-08T13:33:25Z)
• MACE: An Efficient Model-Agnostic Framework for Counterfactual Explanation [132.77005365032468]
  We propose a novel framework of Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanation (MACE) In our MACE approach, we propose a novel RL-based method for finding good counterfactual examples and a gradient-less descent method for improving proximity. Experiments on public datasets validate the effectiveness with better validity, sparsity and proximity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-31T04:57:06Z)
• Beyond Explaining: Opportunities and Challenges of XAI-Based Model Improvement [75.00655434905417]
  Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is an emerging research field bringing transparency to highly complex machine learning (ML) models. This paper offers a comprehensive overview over techniques that apply XAI practically for improving various properties of ML models. We show empirically through experiments on toy and realistic settings how explanations can help improve properties such as model generalization ability or reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-15T15:44:28Z)
• CARLA: A Python Library to Benchmark Algorithmic Recourse and Counterfactual Explanation Algorithms [6.133522864509327]
  CARLA (Counterfactual And Recourse LibrAry) is a python library for benchmarking counterfactual explanation methods. We provide an extensive benchmark of 11 popular counterfactual explanation methods. We also provide a benchmarking framework for research on future counterfactual explanation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T11:00:43Z)
• Developing a Fidelity Evaluation Approach for Interpretable Machine Learning [2.2448567386846916]
  Explainable AI (XAI) methods are used to improve the interpretability of complex models. In particular, methods to evaluate the fidelity of the explanation to the underlying black box require further development. Our evaluations suggest that the internal mechanism of the underlying predictive model, the internal mechanism of the explainable method used and model and data complexity all affect explanation fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-16T00:21:16Z)
• Probabilistic Case-based Reasoning for Open-World Knowledge Graph Completion [59.549664231655726]
  A case-based reasoning (CBR) system solves a new problem by retrieving cases' that are similar to the given problem. In this paper, we demonstrate that such a system is achievable for reasoning in knowledge-bases (KBs) Our approach predicts attributes for an entity by gathering reasoning paths from similar entities in the KB.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T17:48:12Z)

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.