BASED-XAI: Breaking Ablation Studies Down for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05566v1
• Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 14:38:37 GMT
• Title: BASED-XAI: Breaking Ablation Studies Down for Explainable Artificial Intelligence
• Authors: Isha Hameed, Samuel Sharpe, Daniel Barcklow, Justin Au-Yeung, Sahil Verma, Jocelyn Huang, Brian Barr, C. Bayan Bruss
• Abstract summary: We show how varying perturbations can help to avoid potentially flawed conclusions. We also show how treatment of categorical variables is an important consideration in both post-hoc explainability and ablation studies.
• Score: 1.2948254191169823
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods lack ground truth. In its place, method developers have relied on axioms to determine desirable properties for their explanations' behavior. For high stakes uses of machine learning that require explainability, it is not sufficient to rely on axioms as the implementation, or its usage, can fail to live up to the ideal. As a result, there exists active research on validating the performance of XAI methods. The need for validation is especially magnified in domains with a reliance on XAI. A procedure frequently used to assess their utility, and to some extent their fidelity, is an ablation study. By perturbing the input variables in rank order of importance, the goal is to assess the sensitivity of the model's performance. Perturbing important variables should correlate with larger decreases in measures of model capability than perturbing less important features. While the intent is clear, the actual implementation details have not been studied rigorously for tabular data. Using five datasets, three XAI methods, four baselines, and three perturbations, we aim to show 1) how varying perturbations and adding simple guardrails can help to avoid potentially flawed conclusions, 2) how treatment of categorical variables is an important consideration in both post-hoc explainability and ablation studies, and 3) how to identify useful baselines for XAI methods and viable perturbations for ablation studies.

Related papers

• F-Fidelity: A Robust Framework for Faithfulness Evaluation of Explainable AI [15.314388210699443]
  Fine-tuned Fidelity F-Fidelity is a robust evaluation framework for XAI. We show that F-Fidelity significantly improves upon prior evaluation metrics in recovering the ground-truth ranking of explainers. We also show that given a faithful explainer, F-Fidelity metric can be used to compute the sparsity of influential input components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T20:23:06Z)
• Explainable AI needs formal notions of explanation correctness [2.1309989863595677]
  Machine learning in critical domains such as medicine poses risks and requires regulation. One requirement is that decisions of ML systems in high-risk applications should be human-understandable. In its current form, XAI is unfit to provide quality control for ML; it itself needs scrutiny.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T20:47:04Z)
• 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)
• XAI-TRIS: Non-linear image benchmarks to quantify false positive post-hoc attribution of feature importance [1.3958169829527285]
  A lack of formal underpinning leaves it unclear as to what conclusions can safely be drawn from the results of a given XAI method. This means that challenging non-linear problems, typically solved by deep neural networks, presently lack appropriate remedies. We show that popular XAI methods are often unable to significantly outperform random performance baselines and edge detection methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T11:31:11Z)
• Explaining Explainability: Towards Deeper Actionable Insights into Deep Learning through Second-order Explainability [70.60433013657693]
  Second-order explainable AI (SOXAI) was recently proposed to extend explainable AI (XAI) from the instance level to the dataset level. We demonstrate for the first time, via example classification and segmentation cases, that eliminating irrelevant concepts from the training set based on actionable insights from SOXAI can enhance a model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T23:24:01Z)
• Trying to Outrun Causality with Machine Learning: Limitations of Model Explainability Techniques for Identifying Predictive Variables [7.106986689736828]
  We show that machine learning algorithms are not as flexible as they might seem, and are instead incredibly sensitive to the underling causal structure in the data. We provide some alternative recommendations for researchers wanting to explore the data for important variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-20T17:48:54Z)
• Logic Constraints to Feature Importances [17.234442722611803]
  "Black box" nature of AI models is often a limit for a reliable application in high-stakes fields like diagnostic techniques, autonomous guide, etc. Recent works have shown that an adequate level of interpretability could enforce the more general concept of model trustworthiness. The basic idea of this paper is to exploit the human prior knowledge of the features' importance for a specific task, in order to coherently aid the phase of the model's fitting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T09:28:38Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Causal Discovery in Visual Model Based Reinforcement Learning [76.00395335702572]
  A central goal for AI and causality is the joint discovery of abstract representations and causal structure. Existing environments for studying causal induction are poorly suited for this objective because they have complicated task-specific causal graphs. In this work, our goal is to facilitate research in learning representations of high-level variables as well as causal structures among them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-02T05:44:56Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior? [97.77183117452235]
  We carry out human subject tests to isolate the effect of algorithmic explanations on model interpretability. Clear evidence of method effectiveness is found in very few cases. Our results provide the first reliable and comprehensive estimates of how explanations influence simulatability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-04T20:35:17Z)
• Fairness by Learning Orthogonal Disentangled Representations [50.82638766862974]
  We propose a novel disentanglement approach to invariant representation problem. We enforce the meaningful representation to be agnostic to sensitive information by entropy. The proposed approach is evaluated on five publicly available datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-12T11:09:15Z)

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.