EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12261v1
• Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 14:16:06 GMT
• Title: EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods
• Authors: Benedict Clark, Rick Wilming, Artur Dox, Paul Eschenbach, Sami Hached, Daniel Jin Wodke, Michias Taye Zewdie, Uladzislau Bruila, Marta Oliveira, Hjalmar Schulz, Luca Matteo Cornils, Danny Panknin, Ahcène Boubekki, Stefan Haufe,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 1.6383837447674294
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evolving landscape of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to improve the interpretability of intricate machine learning (ML) models, yet faces challenges in formalisation and empirical validation, being an inherently unsupervised process. In this paper, we bring together various benchmark datasets and novel performance metrics in an initial benchmarking platform, the Explainable AI Comparison Toolkit (EXACT), providing a standardised foundation for evaluating XAI methods. Our datasets incorporate ground truth explanations for class-conditional features, and leveraging novel quantitative metrics, this platform assesses the performance of post-hoc XAI methods in the quality of the explanations they produce. Our recent findings have highlighted the limitations of popular XAI methods, as they often struggle to surpass random baselines, attributing significance to irrelevant features. Moreover, we show the variability in explanations derived from different equally performing model architectures. This initial benchmarking platform therefore aims to allow XAI researchers to test and assure the high quality of their newly developed methods.

Related papers

• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• XEdgeAI: A Human-centered Industrial Inspection Framework with Data-centric Explainable Edge AI Approach [2.0209172586699173]
  This paper introduces a novel XAI-integrated Visual Quality Inspection framework. Our framework incorporates XAI and the Large Vision Language Model to deliver human-centered interpretability. This approach paves the way for the broader adoption of reliable and interpretable AI tools in critical industrial applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T14:30:24Z)
• 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)
• Unified Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Perturbation Approach [0.0]
  Inconsistencies between XAI and modeling techniques can have the undesirable effect of casting doubt upon the efficacy of these explainability approaches. We propose a systematic, perturbation-based analysis against a popular, model-agnostic method in XAI, SHapley Additive exPlanations (Shap) We devise algorithms to generate relative feature importance in settings of dynamic inference amongst a suite of popular machine learning and deep learning methods, and metrics that allow us to quantify how well explanations generated under the static case hold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T16:04:35Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classification [52.879658637466605]
  We develop a list of diagnostic properties for evaluating existing explainability techniques. We compare the saliency scores assigned by the explainability techniques with human annotations of salient input regions to find relations between a model's performance and the agreement of its rationales with human ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-25T12:01:53Z)

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.