Precise Benchmarking of Explainable AI Attribution Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03161v1
• Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 17:03:32 GMT
• Title: Precise Benchmarking of Explainable AI Attribution Methods
• Authors: Rafa\"el Brandt, Daan Raatjens, Georgi Gaydadjiev
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rationale behind a deep learning model's output is often difficult to understand by humans. EXplainable AI (XAI) aims at solving this by developing methods that improve interpretability and explainability of machine learning models. Reliable evaluation metrics are needed to assess and compare different XAI methods. 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 allowing high precision representation of input nodes contributions. We also propose new high-fidelity metrics to quantify the difference between explanations of the investigated XAI method and those derived from the synthetic model. Our metrics allow assessment of explanations in terms of precision and recall separately. Also, we propose metrics to independently evaluate negative or positive contributions of inputs. Our proposal provides deeper insights into XAI methods output. We investigate our proposal by constructing a synthetic convolutional image classification model and benchmarking several widely used XAI attribution methods using our evaluation approach. We compare our results with established prior XAI evaluation metrics. By deriving the ground truth directly from the constructed model in our method, we ensure the absence of bias, e.g., subjective either based on the training set. Our experimental results provide novel insights into the performance of Guided-Backprop and Smoothgrad XAI methods that are widely in use. Both have good precision and recall scores among positively contributing pixels (0.7, 0.76 and 0.7, 0.77, respectively), but poor precision scores among negatively contributing pixels (0.44, 0.61 and 0.47, 0.75, resp.). The recall scores in the latter case remain close. We show that our metrics are among the fastest in terms of execution time.

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)
• Robustness of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Industrial Process Modelling [43.388607981317016]
  We evaluate current XAI methods by scoring them based on ground truth simulations and sensitivity analysis. We show the differences between XAI methods in their ability to correctly predict the true sensitivity of the modeled industrial process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T09:46:26Z)
• Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysis [12.921307214813357]
  The aim of the paper is to come up with a novel explanatory technique called SHifted Adversaries using Pixel Elimination. We show that SHAPE is, infact, an adversarial explanation that fools causal metrics that are employed to measure the robustness and reliability of popular importance based visual XAI methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T02:39:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Preserving Knowledge Invariance: Rethinking Robustness Evaluation of Open Information Extraction [50.62245481416744]
  We present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world. We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique. By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T12:05:09Z)
• Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performance [63.740181251997306]
  Real-world machine learning deployments are characterized by mismatches between the source (training) and target (test) distributions. In this work, we investigate methods for predicting the target domain accuracy using only labeled source data and unlabeled target data. We propose Average Thresholded Confidence (ATC), a practical method that learns a threshold on the model's confidence, predicting accuracy as the fraction of unlabeled examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-11T23:01:12Z)
• Scalable Personalised Item Ranking through Parametric Density Estimation [53.44830012414444]
  Learning from implicit feedback is challenging because of the difficult nature of the one-class problem. Most conventional methods use a pairwise ranking approach and negative samplers to cope with the one-class problem. We propose a learning-to-rank approach, which achieves convergence speed comparable to the pointwise counterpart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-11T03:38:16Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)

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.