Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Do Feature Attribution Methods Correctly Attribute Features?

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

arxiv 2104.14403 v2 pith:BQJYBPVN submitted 2021-04-27 cs.LG cs.CV

classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords methodsattributionfeaturegroundtruthprocedureaddressapplied
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Feature attribution methods are popular in interpretable machine learning. These methods compute the attribution of each input feature to represent its importance, but there is no consensus on the definition of "attribution", leading to many competing methods with little systematic evaluation, complicated in particular by the lack of ground truth attribution. To address this, we propose a dataset modification procedure to induce such ground truth. Using this procedure, we evaluate three common methods: saliency maps, rationales, and attentions. We identify several deficiencies and add new perspectives to the growing body of evidence questioning the correctness and reliability of these methods applied on datasets in the wild. We further discuss possible avenues for remedy and recommend new attribution methods to be tested against ground truth before deployment. The code is available at https://github.com/YilunZhou/feature-attribution-evaluation

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools