The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07265v2
• Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 12:18:34 GMT
• Title: The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus
• Authors: Anna Hedstr\"om, Philine Bommer, Kristoffer K. Wickstr{\o}m, Wojciech Samek, Sebastian Lapuschkin, Marina M.-C. H\"ohne
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 10.135749005469686
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 in the absence of ground truth explanation labels. Resolving this issue is of utmost importance as the evaluation outcomes generated by competing evaluation methods (or ''quality estimators''), which aim at measuring the same property of an explanation method, frequently present conflicting rankings. Such disagreements can be challenging for practitioners to interpret, thereby complicating their ability to select the best-performing explanation method. We address this problem through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI, which we define as ''the process of evaluating the evaluation method''. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator: its resilience to noise and reactivity to randomness, thus circumventing the need for ground truth labels. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through a series of experiments, targeting various open questions in XAI such as the selection and hyperparameter optimisation of quality estimators. Our work is released under an open-source license (https://github.com/annahedstroem/MetaQuantus) to serve as a development tool for XAI- and Machine Learning (ML) practitioners to verify and benchmark newly constructed quality estimators in a given explainability context. With this work, we provide the community with clear and theoretically-grounded guidance for identifying reliable evaluation methods, thus facilitating reproducibility in the field.

Related papers

• EQUATOR: A Deterministic Framework for Evaluating LLM Reasoning with Open-Ended Questions. # v1.0.0-beta [2.1249213103048414]
  We introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator, which combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment. Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations. Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T03:56:17Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey of Action Quality Assessment: Method and Benchmark [25.694556140797832]
  Action Quality Assessment (AQA) quantitatively evaluates the quality of human actions, providing automated assessments that reduce biases in human judgment. Recent advances in AQA have introduced innovative methodologies, but similar methods often intertwine across different domains. The lack of a unified benchmark and limited computational comparisons hinder consistent evaluation and fair assessment of AQA approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T10:47:26Z)
• A Unified Framework for Evaluating the Effectiveness and Enhancing the Transparency of Explainable AI Methods in Real-World Applications [2.0681376988193843]
  "Black box" characteristic of AI models constrains interpretability, transparency, and reliability. This study presents a unified XAI evaluation framework to evaluate correctness, interpretability, robustness, fairness, and completeness of explanations generated by AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T05:30:10Z)
• 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 Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps. We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets. We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• An Experimental Investigation into the Evaluation of Explainability Methods [60.54170260771932]
  This work compares 14 different metrics when applied to nine state-of-the-art XAI methods and three dummy methods (e.g., random saliency maps) used as references. Experimental results show which of these metrics produces highly correlated results, indicating potential redundancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T08:07:07Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Uncertainty-aware Score Distribution Learning for Action Quality Assessment [91.05846506274881]
  We propose an uncertainty-aware score distribution learning (USDL) approach for action quality assessment (AQA) Specifically, we regard an action as an instance associated with a score distribution, which describes the probability of different evaluated scores. Under the circumstance where fine-grained score labels are available, we devise a multi-path uncertainty-aware score distributions learning (MUSDL) method to explore the disentangled components of a score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-13T15:41:29Z)

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.