On The Coherence of Quantitative Evaluation of Visual Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10764v5
• Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:58:04 GMT
• Title: On The Coherence of Quantitative Evaluation of Visual Explanations
• Authors: Benjamin Vandersmissen, Jose Oramas
• Abstract summary: Evaluation methods have been proposed to assess the "goodness" of visual explanations. We study a subset of the ImageNet-1k validation set where we evaluate a number of different commonly-used explanation methods. Results of our study suggest that there is a lack of coherency on the grading provided by some of the considered evaluation methods.
• Score: 0.7212939068975619
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent years have shown an increased development of methods for justifying the predictions of neural networks through visual explanations. These explanations usually take the form of heatmaps which assign a saliency (or relevance) value to each pixel of the input image that expresses how relevant the pixel is for the prediction of a label. Complementing this development, evaluation methods have been proposed to assess the "goodness" of such explanations. On the one hand, some of these methods rely on synthetic datasets. However, this introduces the weakness of having limited guarantees regarding their applicability on more realistic settings. On the other hand, some methods rely on metrics for objective evaluation. However the level to which some of these evaluation methods perform with respect to each other is uncertain. Taking this into account, we conduct a comprehensive study on a subset of the ImageNet-1k validation set where we evaluate a number of different commonly-used explanation methods following a set of evaluation methods. We complement our study with sanity checks on the studied evaluation methods as a means to investigate their reliability and the impact of characteristics of the explanations on the evaluation methods. Results of our study suggest that there is a lack of coherency on the grading provided by some of the considered evaluation methods. Moreover, we have identified some characteristics of the explanations, e.g. sparsity, which can have a significant effect on the performance.

Related papers

• Classification Metrics for Image Explanations: Towards Building Reliable XAI-Evaluations [0.24578723416255752]
  Saliency methods provide (super-)pixelwise feature attribution scores for input images. New evaluation metrics for saliency methods are developed and common saliency methods are benchmarked on ImageNet. A scheme for reliability evaluation of such metrics is proposed that is based on concepts from psychometric testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T16:37:50Z)
• Toward Understanding the Disagreement Problem in Neural Network Feature Attribution [0.8057006406834466]
  neural networks have demonstrated their remarkable ability to discern intricate patterns and relationships from raw data. Understanding the inner workings of these black box models remains challenging, yet crucial for high-stake decisions. Our work addresses this confusion by investigating the explanations' fundamental and distributional behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T12:45:59Z)
• 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)
• The Generalizability of Explanations [0.0]
  This work proposes a novel evaluation methodology from the perspective of generalizability. We employ an Autoencoder to learn the distributions of the generated explanations and observe their learnability as well as the plausibility of the learned distributional features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T12:25:59Z)
• Visualizing and Understanding Contrastive Learning [22.553990823550784]
  We design visual explanation methods that contribute towards understanding similarity learning tasks from pairs of images. We also adapt existing metrics, used to evaluate visual explanations of image classification systems, to suit pairs of explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-20T13:01:46Z)
• 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)
• What I Cannot Predict, I Do Not Understand: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainability Methods [6.232071870655069]
  We show that theoretical measures used to score explainability methods poorly reflect the practical usefulness of individual attribution methods in real-world scenarios. Our results suggest a critical need to develop better explainability methods and to deploy human-centered evaluation approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-06T18:36:09Z)
• 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)
• Visualization of Supervised and Self-Supervised Neural Networks via Attribution Guided Factorization [87.96102461221415]
  We develop an algorithm that provides per-class explainability. In an extensive battery of experiments, we demonstrate the ability of our methods to class-specific visualization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-03T18:48:39Z)
• 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)
• There and Back Again: Revisiting Backpropagation Saliency Methods [87.40330595283969]
  Saliency methods seek to explain the predictions of a model by producing an importance map across each input sample. A popular class of such methods is based on backpropagating a signal and analyzing the resulting gradient. We propose a single framework under which several such methods can be unified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T17:58:08Z)

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.