Assessing Fidelity in XAI post-hoc techniques: A Comparative Study with Ground Truth Explanations Datasets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01961v1
• Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 14:57:24 GMT
• Title: Assessing Fidelity in XAI post-hoc techniques: A Comparative Study with Ground Truth Explanations Datasets
• Authors: M. Mir\'o-Nicolau, A. Jaume-i-Cap\'o, G. Moy\`a-Alcover
• Abstract summary: XAI methods based on the backpropagation of output information to input yield higher accuracy and reliability. Backpropagation method tends to generate more noisy saliency maps. Findings have significant implications for the advancement of XAI methods.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of the fidelity of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to their underlying models is a challenging task, primarily due to the absence of a ground truth for explanations. However, assessing fidelity is a necessary step for ensuring a correct XAI methodology. In this study, we conduct a fair and objective comparison of the current state-of-the-art XAI methods by introducing three novel image datasets with reliable ground truth for explanations. The primary objective of this comparison is to identify methods with low fidelity and eliminate them from further research, thereby promoting the development of more trustworthy and effective XAI techniques. Our results demonstrate that XAI methods based on the backpropagation of output information to input yield higher accuracy and reliability compared to methods relying on sensitivity analysis or Class Activation Maps (CAM). However, the backpropagation method tends to generate more noisy saliency maps. These findings have significant implications for the advancement of XAI methods, enabling the elimination of erroneous explanations and fostering the development of more robust and reliable XAI.

Related papers

• 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)
• A Generalization Theory of Cross-Modality Distillation with Contrastive Learning [49.35244441141323]
  Cross-modality distillation arises as an important topic for data modalities containing limited knowledge. We formulate a general framework of cross-modality contrastive distillation (CMCD), built upon contrastive learning. Our algorithm outperforms existing algorithms consistently by a margin of 2-3% across diverse modalities and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T11:05:13Z)
• A Discrepancy Aware Framework for Robust Anomaly Detection [51.710249807397695]
  We present a Discrepancy Aware Framework (DAF), which demonstrates robust performance consistently with simple and cheap strategies. Our method leverages an appearance-agnostic cue to guide the decoder in identifying defects, thereby alleviating its reliance on synthetic appearance. Under the simple synthesis strategies, it outperforms existing methods by a large margin. Furthermore, it also achieves the state-of-the-art localization performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T15:21:40Z)
• Precise Benchmarking of Explainable AI Attribution Methods [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T17:03:32Z)
• REX: Rapid Exploration and eXploitation for AI Agents [103.68453326880456]
  We propose an enhanced approach for Rapid Exploration and eXploitation for AI Agents called REX. REX introduces an additional layer of rewards and integrates concepts similar to Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) scores, leading to more robust and efficient AI agent performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-18T04:26:33Z)
• XAI-TRIS: Non-linear image benchmarks to quantify false positive post-hoc attribution of feature importance [1.3958169829527285]
  A lack of formal underpinning leaves it unclear as to what conclusions can safely be drawn from the results of a given XAI method. This means that challenging non-linear problems, typically solved by deep neural networks, presently lack appropriate remedies. We show that popular XAI methods are often unable to significantly outperform random performance baselines and edge detection methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T11:31:11Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Explaining: Opportunities and Challenges of XAI-Based Model Improvement [75.00655434905417]
  Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is an emerging research field bringing transparency to highly complex machine learning (ML) models. This paper offers a comprehensive overview over techniques that apply XAI practically for improving various properties of ML models. We show empirically through experiments on toy and realistic settings how explanations can help improve properties such as model generalization ability or reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-15T15:44:28Z)
• Data Representing Ground-Truth Explanations to Evaluate XAI Methods [0.0]
  Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods are currently evaluated with approaches mostly originated in interpretable machine learning (IML) research. We propose to represent explanations with canonical equations that can be used to evaluate the accuracy of XAI methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-18T16:54:53Z)

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.