The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2311.07763 · v1 · pith:TVWCSWVS · submitted 2023-11-13 · cs.LG · cs.AI

The Disagreement Problem in Faithfulness Metrics

Reviewed by Pithpith:TVWCSWVSopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords metricsaroundchooseexplanationsfaithfulnessmethodspurposework
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to explain how black-box machine learning models work. Much of the work centers around the holy grail of providing post-hoc feature attributions to any model architecture. While the pace of innovation around novel methods has slowed down, the question remains of how to choose a method, and how to make it fit for purpose. Recently, efforts around benchmarking XAI methods have suggested metrics for that purpose -- but there are many choices. That bounty of choice still leaves an end user unclear on how to proceed. This paper focuses on comparing metrics with the aim of measuring faithfulness of local explanations on tabular classification problems -- and shows that the current metrics don't agree; leaving users unsure how to choose the most faithful explanations.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quantifying Explanation Consistency: The C-Score Metric for CAM-Based Explainability in Medical Image Classification

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The C-Score quantifies intra-class explanation consistency for CAM methods via confidence-weighted pairwise soft IoU and detects AUC-consistency dissociation as an early warning for model instability on chest X-ray cl...