Navigating the Maze of Explainable AI: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Methods and Metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16756v2
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:53:26 GMT
• Title: Navigating the Maze of Explainable AI: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Methods and Metrics
• Authors: Lukas Klein, Carsten T. Lüth, Udo Schlegel, Till J. Bungert, Mennatallah El-Assady, Paul F. Jäger,
• Abstract summary: We introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics. We showcase the high risk of conflicting metrics leading to unreliable rankings and consequently propose a more robust evaluation scheme. LATEC reinforces its role in future XAI research by publicly releasing all 326k saliency maps and 378k metric scores as a (meta-evaluation) dataset.
• Score: 10.045644410833402
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics. We systematically incorporate vital design parameters like varied architectures and diverse input modalities, resulting in 7,560 examined combinations. Through LATEC, we showcase the high risk of conflicting metrics leading to unreliable rankings and consequently propose a more robust evaluation scheme. Further, we comprehensively evaluate various XAI methods to assist practitioners in selecting appropriate methods aligning with their needs. Curiously, the emerging top-performing method, Expected Gradients, is not examined in any relevant related study. LATEC reinforces its role in future XAI research by publicly releasing all 326k saliency maps and 378k metric scores as a (meta-)evaluation dataset. The benchmark is hosted at: https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/latec.

Related papers

• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Developing Guidelines for Functionally-Grounded Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence using Tabular Data [5.864471607396997]
  We identify 20 evaluation criteria and associated evaluation methods, and derive guidelines on when and how each criterion should be evaluated. Our study contributes to the body of knowledge on XAI evaluation through in-depth examination of functionally-grounded XAI evaluation protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T11:42:54Z)
• Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysis [12.921307214813357]
  The aim of the paper is to come up with a novel explanatory technique called SHifted Adversaries using Pixel Elimination. We show that SHAPE is, infact, an adversarial explanation that fools causal metrics that are employed to measure the robustness and reliability of popular importance based visual XAI methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T02:39:46Z)
• A Comprehensive Library for Benchmarking Multi-class Visual Anomaly Detection [52.228708947607636]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive visual anomaly detection benchmark, ADer, which is a modular framework for new methods. The benchmark includes multiple datasets from industrial and medical domains, implementing fifteen state-of-the-art methods and nine comprehensive metrics. We objectively reveal the strengths and weaknesses of different methods and provide insights into the challenges and future directions of multi-class visual anomaly detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T13:40:07Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• PONE: A Novel Automatic Evaluation Metric for Open-Domain Generative Dialogue Systems [48.99561874529323]
  There are three kinds of automatic methods to evaluate the open-domain generative dialogue systems. Due to the lack of systematic comparison, it is not clear which kind of metrics are more effective. We propose a novel and feasible learning-based metric that can significantly improve the correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T04:36:33Z)

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.