Towards a Comprehensive Human-Centred Evaluation Framework for Explainable AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06274v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:20:16 GMT
• Title: Towards a Comprehensive Human-Centred Evaluation Framework for Explainable AI
• Authors: Ivania Donoso-Guzm\'an, Jeroen Ooge, Denis Parra, Katrien Verbert
• Abstract summary: We propose to adapt the User-Centric Evaluation Framework used in recommender systems. We integrate explanation aspects, summarise explanation properties, indicate relations between them, and categorise metrics that measure these properties.
• Score: 1.7222662622390634
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While research on explainable AI (XAI) is booming and explanation techniques have proven promising in many application domains, standardised human-centred evaluation procedures are still missing. In addition, current evaluation procedures do not assess XAI methods holistically in the sense that they do not treat explanations' effects on humans as a complex user experience. To tackle this challenge, we propose to adapt the User-Centric Evaluation Framework used in recommender systems: we integrate explanation aspects, summarise explanation properties, indicate relations between them, and categorise metrics that measure these properties. With this comprehensive evaluation framework, we hope to contribute to the human-centred standardisation of XAI evaluation.

Related papers

• Dimensions of Generative AI Evaluation Design [51.541816010127256]
  We propose a set of general dimensions that capture critical choices involved in GenAI evaluation design. These dimensions include the evaluation setting, the task type, the input source, the interaction style, the duration, the metric type, and the scoring method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T18:25:30Z)
• Hierarchical Evaluation Framework: Best Practices for Human Evaluation [17.91641890651225]
  The absence of widely accepted human evaluation metrics in NLP hampers fair comparisons among different systems and the establishment of universal assessment standards. We develop our own hierarchical evaluation framework to provide a more comprehensive representation of the NLP system's performance. In future work, we will investigate the potential time-saving benefits of our proposed framework for evaluators assessing NLP systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T09:46:02Z)
• 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)
• A System's Approach Taxonomy for User-Centred XAI: A Survey [0.6882042556551609]
  We propose a unified, inclusive and user-centred taxonomy for XAI based on the principles of General System's Theory. This provides a basis for evaluating the appropriateness of XAI approaches for all user types, including both developers and end users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-06T00:50:23Z)
• The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Connecting Algorithmic Research and Usage Contexts: A Perspective of Contextualized Evaluation for Explainable AI [65.44737844681256]
  A lack of consensus on how to evaluate explainable AI (XAI) hinders the advancement of the field. We argue that one way to close the gap is to develop evaluation methods that account for different user requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T05:17:33Z)
• 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)
• Crowdsourcing Evaluation of Saliency-based XAI Methods [18.18238526746074]
  We propose a new human-based evaluation scheme using crowdsourcing to evaluate XAI methods. Our method is inspired by a human computation game, "Peek-a-boom" We evaluate the saliency maps of various XAI methods on two datasets with automated and crowd-based evaluation schemes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-27T17:37:53Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.