BEExAI: Benchmark to Evaluate Explainable AI
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- BEExAI is a benchmark to evaluate explainable AI (XAI) methods.
- It provides a suite of datasets, tasks, and evaluation metrics to assess the performance and reliability of XAI approaches.
- The benchmark aims to help researchers and practitioners develop and improve XAI techniques.
Plain English Explanation
BEExAI: Benchmark to Evaluate Explainable AI describes a new benchmark called BEExAI that is designed to assess the capabilities of explainable AI (XAI) methods. XAI refers to techniques that can provide interpretable and understandable explanations for the decisions made by AI models.
The key idea behind BEExAI is to create a standardized framework that researchers and developers can use to evaluate how well different XAI methods perform. It includes a variety of datasets, tasks, and evaluation metrics that cover different aspects of XAI, such as the faithfulness of the explanations, their stability, and their usefulness for end-users.
By providing this comprehensive benchmark, the authors aim to help the AI research community develop more reliable and effective XAI techniques. This is important because as AI systems become more powerful and influential, it is crucial that they can explain their decision-making in a way that humans can understand and trust.
Technical Explanation
The BEExAI library is the core component of the benchmark. It includes the following key elements:
-
Datasets: BEExAI provides a diverse set of datasets covering different domains, such as computer vision, natural language processing, and tabular data. These datasets are designed to test the performance of XAI methods in various contexts.
-
Tasks: The benchmark defines several tasks that XAI methods must perform, such as image classification, text sentiment analysis, and tabular data prediction. These tasks are designed to test different aspects of XAI, such as the ability to provide faithful and stable explanations.
-
Evaluation Metrics: BEExAI includes a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess the performance of XAI methods. These metrics measure factors such as the faithfulness of the explanations, their stability, and their usefulness for end-users.
The authors also provide a leaderboard to track the performance of different XAI methods on the BEExAI benchmark, which can help drive progress in the field.
Critical Analysis
The BEExAI benchmark is a valuable contribution to the field of explainable AI. By providing a standardized framework for evaluating XAI methods, it can help researchers and practitioners identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, and guide the development of more reliable and useful XAI techniques.
One potential limitation of the benchmark is that it may not capture all the nuances and complexities of real-world XAI applications. The datasets and tasks included in the benchmark may not fully represent the diverse range of scenarios and use cases that XAI methods may encounter in practice. Additionally, the evaluation metrics used in the benchmark may not capture all the relevant aspects of XAI performance, such as the long-term impact of the explanations on user trust and decision-making.
Further research may be needed to address these limitations and ensure that the BEExAI benchmark provides a comprehensive and reliable way to evaluate XAI methods. This could involve expanding the benchmark to include more diverse datasets and tasks, as well as developing new evaluation metrics that capture a broader range of XAI performance characteristics.
Conclusion
The BEExAI benchmark is an important step forward in the field of explainable AI. By providing a standardized framework for evaluating XAI methods, it can help researchers and practitioners develop more reliable and effective XAI techniques. This is crucial as AI systems become increasingly influential in our lives, and it is essential that we can understand and trust the decisions they make.
While the benchmark has some limitations, it represents a significant contribution to the field and provides a valuable tool for advancing the state of the art in explainable AI.
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
BEExAI: Benchmark to Evaluate Explainable AI
Samuel Sithakoul, Sara Meftah, Cl'ement Feutry
Recent research in explainability has given rise to numerous post-hoc attribution methods aimed at enhancing our comprehension of the outputs of black-box machine learning models. However, evaluating the quality of explanations lacks a cohesive approach and a consensus on the methodology for deriving quantitative metrics that gauge the efficacy of explainability post-hoc attribution methods. Furthermore, with the development of increasingly complex deep learning models for diverse data applications, the need for a reliable way of measuring the quality and correctness of explanations is becoming critical. We address this by proposing BEExAI, a benchmark tool that allows large-scale comparison of different post-hoc XAI methods, employing a set of selected evaluation metrics.
Read more7/30/2024
📈
0
EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods
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, Ahc`ene Boubekki, Stefan Haufe
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.
Read more5/22/2024
0
Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attribution Methods
Peiyu Yang, Naveed Akhtar, Jiantong Jiang, Ajmal Mian
Attribution methods compute importance scores for input features to explain the output predictions of deep models. However, accurate assessment of attribution methods is challenged by the lack of benchmark fidelity for attributing model predictions. Moreover, other confounding factors in attribution estimation, including the setup choices of post-processing techniques and explained model predictions, further compromise the reliability of the evaluation. In this work, we first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill, thereby facilitating a systematic assessment of attribution benchmarks. Next, we introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria. We theoretically establish the superiority of our approach over the existing benchmarks for well-founded attribution evaluation. With extensive analysis, we also identify a setup for a consistent and fair benchmarking of attribution methods across different underlying methodologies. This setup is ultimately employed for a comprehensive comparison of existing methods using our BackX benchmark. Finally, our analysis also provides guidance for defending against backdoor attacks with the help of attribution methods.
Read more5/7/2024
0
How Reliable and Stable are Explanations of XAI Methods?
Jos'e Ribeiro, Lucas Cardoso, Vitor Santos, Eduardo Carvalho, N'ikolas Carneiro, Ronnie Alves
Black box models are increasingly being used in the daily lives of human beings living in society. Along with this increase, there has been the emergence of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods aimed at generating additional explanations regarding how the model makes certain predictions. In this sense, methods such as Dalex, Eli5, eXirt, Lofo and Shap emerged as different proposals and methodologies for generating explanations of black box models in an agnostic way. Along with the emergence of these methods, questions arise such as How Reliable and Stable are XAI Methods?. With the aim of shedding light on this main question, this research creates a pipeline that performs experiments using the diabetes dataset and four different machine learning models (LGBM, MLP, DT and KNN), creating different levels of perturbations of the test data and finally generates explanations from the eXirt method regarding the confidence of the models and also feature relevances ranks from all XAI methods mentioned, in order to measure their stability in the face of perturbations. As a result, it was found that eXirt was able to identify the most reliable models among all those used. It was also found that current XAI methods are sensitive to perturbations, with the exception of one specific method.
Read more7/4/2024