Do We Need Another Explainable AI Method? Toward Unifying Post-hoc XAI Evaluation Methods into an Interactive and Multi-dimensional Benchmark
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- 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
Authors: Mohamed Karim Belaid, Eyke Hüllermeier, Maximilian Rabus, Ralf Krestel
Abstract: In recent years, Explainable AI (xAI) attracted a lot of attention as various countries turned explanations into a legal right. xAI allows for improving models beyond the accuracy metric by, e.g., debugging the learned pattern and demystifying the AI's behavior. The widespread use of xAI brought new challenges. On the one hand, the number of published xAI algorithms underwent a boom, and it became difficult for practitioners to select the right tool. On the other hand, some experiments did highlight how easy data scientists could misuse xAI algorithms and misinterpret their results. To tackle the issue of comparing and correctly using feature importance xAI algorithms, we propose Compare-xAI, a benchmark that unifies all exclusive functional testing methods applied to xAI algorithms. We propose a selection protocol to shortlist non-redundant functional tests from the literature, i.e., each targeting a specific end-user requirement in explaining a model. The benchmark encapsulates the complexity of evaluating xAI methods into a hierarchical scoring of three levels, namely, targeting three end-user groups: researchers, practitioners, and laymen in xAI. The most detailed level provides one score per test. The second level regroups tests into five categories (fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, and stress tests). The last level is the aggregated comprehensibility score, which encapsulates the ease of correctly interpreting the algorithm's output in one easy to compare value. Compare-xAI's interactive user interface helps mitigate errors in interpreting xAI results by quickly listing the recommended xAI solutions for each ML task and their current limitations. The benchmark is made available at https://karim-53.github.io/cxai/
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
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.