REVIEW 1 cited by
Explainable AI for Natural Adversarial Images
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Adversarial images highlight how vulnerable modern image classifiers are to perturbations outside of their training set. Human oversight might mitigate this weakness, but depends on humans understanding the AI well enough to predict when it is likely to make a mistake. In previous work we have found that humans tend to assume that the AI's decision process mirrors their own. Here we evaluate if methods from explainable AI can disrupt this assumption to help participants predict AI classifications for adversarial and standard images. We find that both saliency maps and examples facilitate catching AI errors, but their effects are not additive, and saliency maps are more effective than examples.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
What Makes for a Good Saliency Map? Comparing Strategies for Evaluating Saliency Maps in Explainable AI (XAI)
A user study of 166 ICT graduates shows Grad-CAM best improves users' ability to predict classifier accuracy, Guided Backpropagation scores best on mathematical metrics, and the two rankings do not align.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.