Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2207.14160v2

In recent years, the concept of has gained significant attention as countries have recognized explanations as a legal right. This goes beyond just accuracy metrics and allows for the improvement of models by debugging learned patterns and demystifying AI behavior. However, with the widespread use of , new challenges have emerged. On one hand, there has been an increase in published algorithms, making it difficult for practitioners to choose the most suitable tool. On the other hand, some experiments have shown how easily data scientists can misuse these algorithms and misinterpret their results. To address these issues and ensure proper comparison and utilization of , a team led by Mohamed Karim Belaid, Eyke Hüllermeier, Maximilian Rabus, and Ralf Krestel has proposed . This benchmark aims to unify all exclusive functional testing methods applied to algorithms. The team has developed a selection protocol to identify non-redundant functional tests from existing literature that are tailored to meet specific end-user requirements for explaining a model. encapsulates the complexity of evaluating methods through a hierarchical scoring system with three levels targeting different end-user groups: researchers, practitioners, and laymen in . At the most detailed level, individual scores are provided for each test while grouping them into five categories - fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, and stress tests - at the second level. The benchmark also includes an aggregated comprehensibility score that simplifies interpreting algorithm outputs into one easy-to-compare value. The interactive user interface of aims to mitigate errors in interpreting results by quickly recommending suitable solutions for various machine learning tasks along with their current limitations. This comprehensive benchmark is now accessible at https://karim-53.github.io/cxai/, offering a valuable resource for those navigating the complex landscape of explainable AI methods.

• - Explanation as a legal right has gained attention in recent years
• - Importance of going beyond accuracy metrics to improve AI models by debugging learned patterns and demystifying AI behavior
• - Challenges arising from the widespread use of explainable AI (XAI)
• - Increase in published XAI algorithms, making it difficult for practitioners to choose the most suitable tool
• - Potential misuse and misinterpretation of XAI algorithms by data scientists
• - Proposal of a benchmark led by Mohamed Karim Belaid, Eyke Hüllermeier, Maximilian Rabus, and Ralf Krestel to address issues and ensure proper comparison and utilization of XAI
• - Benchmark aims to unify exclusive functional testing methods for XAI algorithms
• - Development of a selection protocol to identify non-redundant functional tests tailored to meet specific end-user requirements for explaining a model
• - Hierarchical scoring system with three levels targeting different end-user groups: researchers, practitioners, and laymen in XAI
• - Grouping tests into five categories: fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, and stress tests
• - Inclusion of an aggregated comprehensibility score simplifying interpreting algorithm outputs into one easy-to-compare value
• - Interactive user interface aiming to recommend suitable solutions for various machine learning tasks along with their current limitations

Summary1. People want to explain why AI makes decisions. 2. We need to do more than just check if AI is right. 3. It's hard because many XAI tools are available. 4. Some people might use XAI wrongly. 5. A new test will help compare and use XAI better. Definitions- Explaination: Giving reasons for something - Accuracy metrics: Measures of how correct something is - Debugging: Finding and fixing problems - Demystifying: Making something less mysterious - Widespread: Happening in many places - Misuse: Using something in the wrong way - Misinterpretation: Understanding something incorrectly - Benchmark: Standard for comparison - Functional testing methods: Ways to check how well something works - Hierarchical scoring system: Ranking system with different levels of importance - Fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, stress tests: Different types of tests for checking different things - Comprehensibility score: Score showing how easy it is to understand something

In recent years, the concept of explainable AI (XAI) has gained significant attention as countries have recognized explanations as a legal right. This goes beyond just accuracy metrics and allows for the improvement of models by debugging learned patterns and demystifying AI behavior. However, with the widespread use of XAI, new challenges have emerged. On one hand, there has been an increase in published XAI algorithms, making it difficult for practitioners to choose the most suitable tool. On the other hand, some experiments have shown how easily data scientists can misuse these algorithms and misinterpret their results. To address these issues and ensure proper comparison and utilization of XAI methods, a team led by Mohamed Karim Belaid, Eyke Hüllermeier, Maximilian Rabus, and Ralf Krestel has proposed a benchmark called CXAIBench. CXAIBench aims to unify all exclusive functional testing methods applied to XAI algorithms. The team has developed a selection protocol to identify non-redundant functional tests from existing literature that are tailored to meet specific end-user requirements for explaining a model. CXAIBench encapsulates the complexity of evaluating XAI methods through a hierarchical scoring system with three levels targeting different end-user groups: researchers, practitioners, and laymen in AI. At the most detailed level, individual scores are provided for each test while grouping them into five categories - fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, and stress tests - at the second level. These categories cover important aspects such as how well an algorithm explains its own decisions (fidelity), its sensitivity to changes in input data (fragility), its consistency over time (stability), its complexity (simplicity), and its performance under challenging conditions (stress tests). The benchmark also includes an aggregated comprehensibility score that simplifies interpreting algorithm outputs into one easy-to-compare value. This score takes into account both technical and non-technical factors such as the complexity of the algorithm, its interpretability, and its ability to communicate with end-users. This makes it easier for practitioners to choose the most suitable XAI method for their specific needs. The interactive user interface of CXAIBench aims to mitigate errors in interpreting XAI results by quickly recommending suitable solutions for various machine learning tasks along with their current limitations. This comprehensive benchmark is now accessible at https://karim-53.github.io/cxai/, offering a valuable resource for those navigating the complex landscape of explainable AI methods. In conclusion, CXAIBench is an important step towards standardizing and improving the evaluation and utilization of XAI methods. By providing a comprehensive benchmark that takes into account different end-user requirements and provides easy-to-understand scores, this tool can help bridge the gap between researchers, practitioners, and laymen in AI. As XAI continues to gain importance in various industries, benchmarks like CXAIBench will play a crucial role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and trust in AI systems.