The Blame Problem in Evaluating Local Explanations, and How to Tackle it

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03466v1
• Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 11:21:49 GMT
• Title: The Blame Problem in Evaluating Local Explanations, and How to Tackle it
• Authors: Amir Hossein Akhavan Rahnama
• Abstract summary: Bar for developing new explainability techniques is low due to lack of optimal evaluation measures. Without rigorous measures, it is hard to have concrete evidence of whether new explanation techniques can significantly outperform their predecessors.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The number of local model-agnostic explanation techniques proposed has grown rapidly recently. One main reason is that the bar for developing new explainability techniques is low due to the lack of optimal evaluation measures. Without rigorous measures, it is hard to have concrete evidence of whether the new explanation techniques can significantly outperform their predecessors. Our study proposes a new taxonomy for evaluating local explanations: robustness, evaluation using ground truth from synthetic datasets and interpretable models, model randomization, and human-grounded evaluation. Using this proposed taxonomy, we highlight that all categories of evaluation methods, except those based on the ground truth from interpretable models, suffer from a problem we call the "blame problem." In our study, we argue that this category of evaluation measure is a more reasonable method for evaluating local model-agnostic explanations. However, we show that even this category of evaluation measures has further limitations. The evaluation of local explanations remains an open research problem.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• On The Coherence of Quantitative Evaluation of Visual Explanations [0.7212939068975619]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T13:41:57Z)
• Are Neural Topic Models Broken? [81.15470302729638]
  We study the relationship between automated and human evaluation of topic models. We find that neural topic models fare worse in both respects compared to an established classical method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T14:38:50Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• Off-policy evaluation for learning-to-rank via interpolating the item-position model and the position-based model [83.83064559894989]
  A critical need for industrial recommender systems is the ability to evaluate recommendation policies offline, before deploying them to production. We develop a new estimator that mitigates the problems of the two most popular off-policy estimators for rankings. In particular, the new estimator, called INTERPOL, addresses the bias of a potentially misspecified position-based model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T17:22:30Z)
• CEBaB: Estimating the Causal Effects of Real-World Concepts on NLP Model Behavior [26.248879735549277]
  We cast model explanation as the causal inference problem of estimating causal effects of real-world concepts on the output behavior of ML models. We introduce CEBaB, a new benchmark dataset for assessing concept-based explanation methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP) We use CEBaB to compare the quality of a range of concept-based explanation methods covering different assumptions and conceptions of the problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-27T17:59:14Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)
• Towards Better Model Understanding with Path-Sufficient Explanations [11.517059323883444]
  Path-Sufficient Explanations Method (PSEM) is a sequence of sufficient explanations for a given input of strictly decreasing size. PSEM can be thought to trace the local boundary of the model in a smooth manner, thus providing better intuition about the local model behavior for the specific input. A user study depicts the strength of the method in communicating the local behavior, where (many) users are able to correctly determine the prediction made by a model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T16:06:10Z)
• Evaluation of Local Model-Agnostic Explanations Using Ground Truth [4.278336455989584]
  Explanation techniques are commonly evaluated using human-grounded methods. We propose a functionally-grounded evaluation procedure for local model-agnostic explanation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-04T13:47:31Z)
• 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)

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.