EvaluateXAI: A Framework to Evaluate the Reliability and Consistency of Rule-based XAI Techniques for Software Analytics Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13902v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:09:28 GMT
• Title: EvaluateXAI: A Framework to Evaluate the Reliability and Consistency of Rule-based XAI Techniques for Software Analytics Tasks
• Authors: Md Abdul Awal, Chanchal K. Roy,
• Abstract summary: PyExplainer and LIME have been employed to explain the predictions of ML models in software analytics tasks. This paper assesses the ability of these techniques to generate reliable and consistent explanations for ML models.
• Score: 5.176434782905268
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The advancement of machine learning (ML) models has led to the development of ML-based approaches to improve numerous software engineering tasks in software maintenance and evolution. Nevertheless, research indicates that despite their potential successes, ML models may not be employed in real-world scenarios because they often remain a black box to practitioners, lacking explainability in their reasoning. Recently, various rule-based model-agnostic Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, such as PyExplainer and LIME, have been employed to explain the predictions of ML models in software analytics tasks. This paper assesses the ability of these techniques (e.g., PyExplainer and LIME) to generate reliable and consistent explanations for ML models across various software analytics tasks, including Just-in-Time (JIT) defect prediction, clone detection, and the classification of useful code review comments. Our manual investigations find inconsistencies and anomalies in the explanations generated by these techniques. Therefore, we design a novel framework: Evaluation of Explainable AI (EvaluateXAI), along with granular-level evaluation metrics, to automatically assess the effectiveness of rule-based XAI techniques in generating reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks. After conducting in-depth experiments involving seven state-of-the-art ML models trained on five datasets and six evaluation metrics, we find that none of the evaluation metrics reached 100\%, indicating the unreliability of the explanations generated by XAI techniques. Additionally, PyExplainer and LIME failed to provide consistent explanations for 86.11% and 77.78% of the experimental combinations, respectively. Therefore, our experimental findings emphasize the necessity for further research in XAI to produce reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks.

Related papers

• Investigating Adversarial Attacks in Software Analytics via Machine Learning Explainability [11.16693333878553]
  This study investigates the relationship between ML explainability and adversarial attacks to measure the robustness of ML models in software analytics tasks. Our experiments, involving six datasets, three ML explainability techniques, and seven ML models, demonstrate that ML explainability can be used to conduct successful adversarial attacks on ML models in software analytics tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T23:21:55Z)
• 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)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• LLMs for XAI: Future Directions for Explaining Explanations [50.87311607612179]
  We focus on refining explanations computed using existing XAI algorithms. Initial experiments and user study suggest that LLMs offer a promising way to enhance the interpretability and usability of XAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T19:17:47Z)
• GAM(e) changer or not? An evaluation of interpretable machine learning models based on additive model constraints [5.783415024516947]
  This paper investigates a series of intrinsically interpretable machine learning models. We evaluate the prediction qualities of five GAMs as compared to six traditional ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-19T20:37:31Z)
• 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)
• Hessian-based toolbox for reliable and interpretable machine learning in physics [58.720142291102135]
  We present a toolbox for interpretability and reliability, extrapolation of the model architecture. It provides a notion of the influence of the input data on the prediction at a given test point, an estimation of the uncertainty of the model predictions, and an agnostic score for the model predictions. Our work opens the road to the systematic use of interpretability and reliability methods in ML applied to physics and, more generally, science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-04T16:32:59Z)
• Towards Model-informed Precision Dosing with Expert-in-the-loop Machine Learning [0.0]
  We consider a ML framework that may accelerate model learning and improve its interpretability by incorporating human experts into the model learning loop. We propose a novel human-in-the-loop ML framework aimed at dealing with learning problems that the cost of data annotation is high. With an application to precision dosing, our experimental results show that the approach can learn interpretable rules from data and may potentially lower experts' workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-28T03:45:09Z)
• Practical Machine Learning Safety: A Survey and Primer [81.73857913779534]
  Open-world deployment of Machine Learning algorithms in safety-critical applications such as autonomous vehicles needs to address a variety of ML vulnerabilities. New models and training techniques to reduce generalization error, achieve domain adaptation, and detect outlier examples and adversarial attacks. Our organization maps state-of-the-art ML techniques to safety strategies in order to enhance the dependability of the ML algorithm from different aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-09T05:56:42Z)
• Learning by Design: Structuring and Documenting the Human Choices in Machine Learning Development [6.903929927172917]
  We present a method consisting of eight design questions that outline the deliberation and normative choices going into creating a machine learning model. Our method affords several benefits, such as supporting critical assessment through methodological transparency. We believe that our method can help ML practitioners structure and justify their choices and assumptions when developing ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T08:47:45Z)
• Transfer Learning without Knowing: Reprogramming Black-box Machine Learning Models with Scarce Data and Limited Resources [78.72922528736011]
  We propose a novel approach, black-box adversarial reprogramming (BAR), that repurposes a well-trained black-box machine learning model. Using zeroth order optimization and multi-label mapping techniques, BAR can reprogram a black-box ML model solely based on its input-output responses. BAR outperforms state-of-the-art methods and yields comparable performance to the vanilla adversarial reprogramming method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-17T01:52:34Z)

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.