The Disagreement Problem in Faithfulness Metrics
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:TVWCSWVSrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Quantifying Explanation Consistency: The C-Score Metric for CAM-Based Explainability in Medical Image Classification
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...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.