XAI-TRIS: Non-linear benchmarks to quantify ML explanation performance

AI-generated keywords: Explainable Artificial Intelligence

AI-generated Key Points

Growing interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)
Lack of formal underpinning in XAI methods raises concerns about reliability and interpretability
Challenge of suppressor variables influencing model predictions
Need for rigorous evaluation metrics and benchmark datasets capturing realistic correlations between important and unimportant features
Introduction of benchmark datasets for non-linear classification scenarios with known ground truth explanations
Definition of quantitative metrics for evaluating explanation performance with few important features and suppressor variables
Evaluation of sixteen popular XAI methods across three machine learning architectures reveals struggles to outperform random baselines and edge detection techniques
Contribution to advancing understanding of XAI methods through a comprehensive evaluation framework addressing linear and non-linear settings, as well as the influence of suppressor variables

Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Benedict Clark, Rick Wilming, Stefan Haufe

arXiv: 2306.12816v1 - DOI (cs.LG)

Under review

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: The field of 'explainable' artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced highly cited methods that seek to make the decisions of complex machine learning (ML) methods 'understandable' to humans, for example by attributing 'importance' scores to input features. Yet, a lack of formal underpinning leaves it unclear as to what conclusions can safely be drawn from the results of a given XAI method and has also so far hindered the theoretical verification and empirical validation of XAI methods. This means that challenging non-linear problems, typically solved by deep neural networks, presently lack appropriate remedies. Here, we craft benchmark datasets for three different non-linear classification scenarios, in which the important class-conditional features are known by design, serving as ground truth explanations. Using novel quantitative metrics, we benchmark the explanation performance of a wide set of XAI methods across three deep learning model architectures. We show that popular XAI methods are often unable to significantly outperform random performance baselines and edge detection methods. Moreover, we demonstrate that explanations derived from different model architectures can be vastly different; thus, prone to misinterpretation even under controlled conditions.

Submitted to arXiv on 22 Jun. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2306.12816v1

Comprehensive Summary
Key points
Layman's Summary
Blog article

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), which aims to make the decisions of complex machine learning models more understandable to humans. However, the lack of formal underpinning in XAI methods has raised concerns about the reliability and interpretability of these explanations. To address this issue, researchers have started to focus on empirically validating XAI methods using ground truth data. One key challenge in evaluating XAI methods is the presence of suppressor variables, which are features that do not have a direct statistical association with the prediction target but can still influence model predictions by removing noise. Previous studies have shown that popular XAI methods may incorrectly attribute importance to suppressor variables, even in linear settings. This highlights the need for rigorous evaluation metrics and benchmark datasets that capture realistic correlations between important and unimportant features. To address this gap, this study introduces benchmark datasets for three different non-linear classification scenarios where ground truth explanations are explicitly known. These scenarios involve distinguishing between different types of tetrominoes overlaid on noisy backgrounds, requiring non-linear predictive models for effective classification. The study also defines quantitative metrics for evaluating explanation performance in cases with few important features and investigates the impact of suppressor variables introduced through different types of background noise. Furthermore, the study evaluates sixteen popular model-agnostic and model-specific XAI methods across three machine learning architectures to assess their explanation performance. The findings suggest that existing XAI methods often struggle to outperform random baselines and edge detection techniques, highlighting the challenges in interpreting explanations derived from different model architectures. Overall, this research contributes to advancing our understanding of XAI methods by providing a comprehensive evaluation framework that considers both linear and non-linear settings while addressing the influence of suppressor variables on explanation performance. By introducing realistic correlations between important and unimportant features in benchmark datasets, this study sheds light on the limitations and potential improvements needed in current XAI methodologies.

- Growing interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)
- Lack of formal underpinning in XAI methods raises concerns about reliability and interpretability
- Challenge of suppressor variables influencing model predictions
- Need for rigorous evaluation metrics and benchmark datasets capturing realistic correlations between important and unimportant features
- Introduction of benchmark datasets for non-linear classification scenarios with known ground truth explanations
- Definition of quantitative metrics for evaluating explanation performance with few important features and suppressor variables
- Evaluation of sixteen popular XAI methods across three machine learning architectures reveals struggles to outperform random baselines and edge detection techniques
- Contribution to advancing understanding of XAI methods through a comprehensive evaluation framework addressing linear and non-linear settings, as well as the influence of suppressor variables

Summary1. People are getting more interested in understanding how artificial intelligence works. 2. Some AI methods don't have strong foundations, which makes it hard to trust and explain them. 3. Sometimes other factors can affect the predictions made by AI models. 4. We need better ways to test and compare AI models using real-world data. 5. Scientists are creating new tests to see how well different AI methods explain their decisions. Definitions- Artificial Intelligence (AI): Technology that allows machines to learn and make decisions like humans. - Reliability: How trustworthy or dependable something is. - Interpretability: The ability to understand or explain something clearly. - Correlations: Relationships or connections between different things. - Benchmark datasets: Standardized sets of data used for testing and comparison purposes. - Metrics: Measurements used to evaluate performance or effectiveness. - Suppressor variables: Factors that can influence the results but are not directly related to the main focus.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has been a growing field of interest in recent years, with the aim of making complex machine learning models more understandable to humans. However, concerns have been raised about the reliability and interpretability of XAI methods due to their lack of formal underpinning. To address this issue, researchers have started focusing on empirically validating XAI methods using ground truth data. One major challenge in evaluating XAI methods is the presence of suppressor variables. These are features that do not have a direct statistical association with the prediction target but can still influence model predictions by removing noise. Previous studies have shown that popular XAI methods may incorrectly attribute importance to suppressor variables, even in linear settings. This highlights the need for rigorous evaluation metrics and benchmark datasets that capture realistic correlations between important and unimportant features. To bridge this gap, a recent study introduces benchmark datasets for three different non-linear classification scenarios where ground truth explanations are explicitly known. These scenarios involve distinguishing between different types of tetrominoes overlaid on noisy backgrounds, requiring non-linear predictive models for effective classification. The study also defines quantitative metrics for evaluating explanation performance in cases with few important features and investigates the impact of suppressor variables introduced through different types of background noise. Furthermore, sixteen popular model-agnostic and model-specific XAI methods were evaluated across three machine learning architectures to assess their explanation performance. The findings suggest that existing XAI methods often struggle to outperform random baselines and edge detection techniques, highlighting the challenges in interpreting explanations derived from different model architectures. Overall, this research contributes to advancing our understanding of XAI methods by providing a comprehensive evaluation framework that considers both linear and non-linear settings while addressing the influence of suppressor variables on explanation performance. By introducing realistic correlations between important and unimportant features in benchmark datasets, this study sheds light on the limitations and potential improvements needed in current XAI methodologies. The introduction of benchmark datasets for non-linear classification scenarios with known ground truth explanations is a significant contribution to the field. These datasets provide a standardized and realistic way to evaluate XAI methods, allowing for fair comparisons between different approaches. The inclusion of quantitative metrics also adds objectivity to the evaluation process, making it easier to assess the performance of XAI methods. The study's findings also highlight the limitations of current XAI methods and the need for further improvements. The struggle to outperform random baselines and edge detection techniques suggests that these methods may not be as effective in explaining complex machine learning models as previously thought. This calls for more research into developing better XAI techniques that can accurately explain model predictions. One key takeaway from this study is the importance of considering suppressor variables when evaluating XAI methods. By introducing these variables through different types of background noise, the researchers were able to simulate real-world scenarios where unimportant features can influence model predictions. This emphasizes the need for robust evaluation metrics that take into account such variables and their impact on explanation performance. In conclusion, this research paper provides valuable insights into the challenges and limitations faced by current XAI methodologies in explaining complex machine learning models. By introducing benchmark datasets and rigorous evaluation metrics, this study contributes towards improving our understanding of XAI methods' reliability and interpretability. It also highlights areas for future research in developing more effective and accurate XAI techniques.

Created on 02 Apr. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.