Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1907.06831v2

Interpretable Machine Learning (IML) has gained significant importance in various real-world applications, including autonomous cars and medical diagnosis. The need for explanations in these applications is crucial to help users understand how machine learning systems work and build trust in them. However, evaluating the quality of generated explanations in IML is challenging due to the diverse scenarios and subjective nature of explanations. Ground truth data for benchmark evaluation is rarely available. This article addresses this issue by rigorously defining the problem of evaluating explanations in IML and reviewing existing efforts from state-of-the-art research. The authors summarize three general aspects of explanation: generalizability, fidelity, and persuasibility. They provide formal definitions for each aspect and review representative methodologies for evaluating them across different tasks. Additionally, they propose a unified evaluation framework that considers the hierarchical needs of developers and end-users, making it adaptable to various practical scenarios. The article also discusses open problems in evaluating explanations and highlights limitations of current evaluation techniques that need further exploration. By addressing these challenges, researchers can better assess system boundaries and understand the true benefits that explanations offer to human users. In summary, this article provides a comprehensive overview of evaluating explanations without ground truth in Interpretable Machine Learning. It defines key aspects of explanation quality, reviews existing methodologies, proposes a unified evaluation framework, and identifies areas for future research.

• - Interpretable Machine Learning (IML) is important in real-world applications like autonomous cars and medical diagnosis
• - Evaluating the quality of explanations in IML is challenging due to diverse scenarios and lack of ground truth data
• - The article defines three aspects of explanation: generalizability, fidelity, and persuasibility
• - It reviews existing methodologies for evaluating explanations across different tasks
• - A unified evaluation framework is proposed, considering the needs of developers and end-users
• - Open problems in evaluating explanations are discussed, along with limitations of current techniques
• - Addressing these challenges helps researchers understand the benefits of explanations for human users.

Interpretable Machine Learning (IML) is important in things like self-driving cars and medical diagnosis. It helps us understand how the machines make decisions. Evaluating the quality of explanations in IML is hard because there are many different situations and not enough data to compare to. The article talks about three aspects of explanation: generalizability, fidelity, and persuasibility. It also looks at different ways to evaluate explanations for different tasks. They suggest a way to evaluate explanations that considers what developers and users need. There are still some problems with evaluating explanations that need to be solved. This will help researchers see how explanations can help people better." Definitions- Interpretable Machine Learning (IML): A type of machine learning that helps us understand how machines make decisions. - Autonomous cars: Cars that can drive themselves without a human driver. - Medical diagnosis: Figuring out what illness or condition someone has based on their symptoms. - Generalizability: How well an explanation works in different situations or scenarios. - Fidelity: How accurate or true an explanation is compared to the actual decision made by the machine. - Persuasibility: How convincing or believable an explanation is to humans. - Unified evaluation framework: A way of evaluating something that takes into account the needs of both developers and end-users

Evaluating Explanations in Interpretable Machine Learning

Interpretable Machine Learning (IML) has become increasingly important for various real-world applications, such as autonomous cars and medical diagnosis. In these scenarios, it is essential to provide explanations that help users understand how machine learning systems work and build trust in them. However, evaluating the quality of generated explanations is challenging due to the diverse scenarios and subjective nature of explanations. Ground truth data for benchmark evaluation is rarely available. This article addresses this issue by rigorously defining the problem of evaluating explanations in IML and reviewing existing efforts from state-of-the-art research.

Key Aspects of Explanation Quality

The authors summarize three general aspects of explanation: generalizability, fidelity, and persuasibility. Generalizability refers to how well an explanation can be applied across different tasks or datasets; fidelity measures how accurately an explanation reflects the underlying model; and persuasibility assesses whether an explanation can effectively influence a user’s decision making process. The authors provide formal definitions for each aspect and review representative methodologies for evaluating them across different tasks.

Unified Evaluation Framework

The authors propose a unified evaluation framework that considers the hierarchical needs of developers and end-users, making it adaptable to various practical scenarios. The framework consists of two levels: a low level which evaluates individual components such as explainers or visualizations; and a high level which focuses on assessing overall system performance with respect to user requirements like accuracy or trustworthiness. This approach allows researchers to better assess system boundaries while understanding the true benefits that explanations offer to human users.

Open Problems & Limitations

The article also discusses open problems in evaluating explanations such as dealing with complex models or measuring long term effects on user behavior over time, as well as limitations of current evaluation techniques like lack of ground truth data or difficulty in quantifying qualitative metrics like trustworthiness or confidence scores. By addressing these challenges, researchers can further improve their understanding about IML systems while providing more accurate evaluations for generated explanations without ground truth data.

Conclusion

In summary, this article provides a comprehensive overview about evaluating explanations without ground truth in Interpretable Machine Learning (IML). It defines key aspects of explanation quality including generalizability, fidelity, and persuasibility; reviews existing methodologies; proposes a unified evaluation framework; identifies areas for future research; discusses open problems & limitations; all while highlighting potential benefits that IML offers to human users through effective evaluations without ground truth data .