Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysis
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• This paper investigates the trustworthiness of objective explanatory evaluation metrics, which are used to assess the quality of explanations for machine learning models.
• The authors conduct an adversarial analysis, where they create adversarial examples that can trick these evaluation metrics into giving high scores, even for poor explanations.
Plain English Explanation
• Machine learning models are often complex and can be difficult to understand. To address this, researchers have developed
• However, this paper raises concerns about the trustworthiness of these evaluation metrics. The authors show that it's possible to
• This is problematic because it means these metrics may not be as reliable as previously thought. Researchers and developers who rely on these metrics to assess their models' explanations could be making decisions based on inaccurate information.
Technical Explanation
• The authors focus on two popular explanatory evaluation metrics:
• They create adversarial examples by applying small, imperceptible perturbations to the input data. These perturbations are designed to trick the metrics into giving high scores, even when the actual explanations are poor.
• The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their adversarial attacks on both synthetic and real-world datasets, showing that the metrics can be easily fooled in a variety of scenarios.
Critical Analysis
• The paper highlights an important limitation of current explanatory evaluation metrics: they may not be as robust as previously thought, and can be vulnerable to adversarial attacks.
• This is a significant concern, as these metrics are increasingly being used to assess the trustworthiness and reliability of machine learning models. If the metrics can be easily manipulated, it calls into question the validity of the insights they provide.
• The authors suggest that future research should focus on developing more
Conclusion
• This paper raises important questions about the trustworthiness of popular explanatory evaluation metrics, which are used to assess the quality of explanations for machine learning models.
• The authors demonstrate that these metrics can be easily fooled by adversarial examples, which casts doubt on their reliability and calls for the development of more robust evaluation methods.
• As machine learning models become increasingly complex and influential, it is crucial that we have trustworthy tools for understanding and evaluating their inner workings. This paper highlights the need for continued research and innovation in this area.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysis
Prithwijit Chowdhury, Mohit Prabhushankar, Ghassan AlRegib, Mohamed Deriche
Explainable AI (XAI) has revolutionized the field of deep learning by empowering users to have more trust in neural network models. The field of XAI allows users to probe the inner workings of these algorithms to elucidate their decision-making processes. The rise in popularity of XAI has led to the advent of different strategies to produce explanations, all of which only occasionally agree. Thus several objective evaluation metrics have been devised to decide which of these modules give the best explanation for specific scenarios. The goal of the paper is twofold: (i) we employ the notions of necessity and sufficiency from causal literature to come up with a novel explanatory technique called SHifted Adversaries using Pixel Elimination(SHAPE) which satisfies all the theoretical and mathematical criteria of being a valid explanation, (ii) 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. Our analysis shows that SHAPE outperforms popular explanatory techniques like GradCAM and GradCAM++ in these tests and is comparable to RISE, raising questions about the sanity of these metrics and the need for human involvement for an overall better evaluation.
Read more6/13/2024
0
Unified Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Perturbation Approach
Jacob Dineen, Don Kridel, Daniel Dolk, David Castillo
A high-velocity paradigm shift towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged in recent years. Highly complex Machine Learning (ML) models have flourished in many tasks of intelligence, and the questions have started to shift away from traditional metrics of validity towards something deeper: What is this model telling me about my data, and how is it arriving at these conclusions? Inconsistencies between XAI and modeling techniques can have the undesirable effect of casting doubt upon the efficacy of these explainability approaches. To address these problems, 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. We propose a taxonomy for feature importance methodology, measure alignment, and observe quantifiable similarity amongst explanation models across several datasets.
Read more5/31/2024
0
Classification Metrics for Image Explanations: Towards Building Reliable XAI-Evaluations
Benjamin Fresz, Lena Lorcher, Marco Huber
Decision processes of computer vision models - especially deep neural networks - are opaque in nature, meaning that these decisions cannot be understood by humans. Thus, over the last years, many methods to provide human-understandable explanations have been proposed. For image classification, the most common group are saliency methods, which provide (super-)pixelwise feature attribution scores for input images. But their evaluation still poses a problem, as their results cannot be simply compared to the unknown ground truth. To overcome this, a slew of different proxy metrics have been defined, which are - as the explainability methods themselves - often built on intuition and thus, are possibly unreliable. In this paper, new evaluation metrics for saliency methods are developed and common saliency methods are benchmarked on ImageNet. In addition, a scheme for reliability evaluation of such metrics is proposed that is based on concepts from psychometric testing. The used code can be found at https://github.com/lelo204/ClassificationMetricsForImageExplanations .
Read more6/10/2024
0
Can you trust your explanations? A robustness test for feature attribution methods
Ilaria Vascotto, Alex Rodriguez, Alessandro Bonaita, Luca Bortolussi
The increase of legislative concerns towards the usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently led to a series of regulations striving for a more transparent, trustworthy and accountable AI. Along with these proposals, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has seen a rapid growth but the usage of its techniques has at times led to unexpected results. The robustness of the approaches is, in fact, a key property often overlooked: it is necessary to evaluate the stability of an explanation (to random and adversarial perturbations) to ensure that the results are trustable. To this end, we propose a test to evaluate the robustness to non-adversarial perturbations and an ensemble approach to analyse more in depth the robustness of XAI methods applied to neural networks and tabular datasets. We will show how leveraging manifold hypothesis and ensemble approaches can be beneficial to an in-depth analysis of the robustness.
Read more6/21/2024