REVIEW 1 cited by
The Disagreement Problem in Faithfulness Metrics
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
The Disagreement Problem in Faithfulness Metrics
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.
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.