Lukas Klein

Paul F. Jaeger, Carsten T. Lüth, Lukas Klein et al.

Reliable application of machine learning-based decision systems in the wild is one of the major challenges currently investigated by the field. A large portion of established approaches aims to detect erroneous predictions by means of assigning confidence scores. This confidence may be obtained by either quantifying the model's predictive uncertainty, learning explicit scoring functions, or assessing whether the input is in line with the training distribution. Curiously, while these approaches all state to address the same eventual goal of detecting failures of a classifier upon real-life application, they currently constitute largely separated research fields with individual evaluation protocols, which either exclude a substantial part of relevant methods or ignore large parts of relevant failure sources. In this work, we systematically reveal current pitfalls caused by these inconsistencies and derive requirements for a holistic and realistic evaluation of failure detection. To demonstrate the relevance of this unified perspective, we present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions w.r.t all relevant methods and failure sources. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation in the abundance of publicized research on confidence scoring. Code and trained models are at https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/fd-shifts.

Carsten T. Lüth, Till J. Bungert, Lukas Klein et al.

Active Learning (AL) aims to reduce the labeling burden by interactively selecting the most informative samples from a pool of unlabeled data. While there has been extensive research on improving AL query methods in recent years, some studies have questioned the effectiveness of AL compared to emerging paradigms such as semi-supervised (Semi-SL) and self-supervised learning (Self-SL), or a simple optimization of classifier configurations. Thus, today's AL literature presents an inconsistent and contradictory landscape, leaving practitioners uncertain about whether and how to use AL in their tasks. In this work, we make the case that this inconsistency arises from a lack of systematic and realistic evaluation of AL methods. Specifically, we identify five key pitfalls in the current literature that reflect the delicate considerations required for AL evaluation. Further, we present an evaluation framework that overcomes these pitfalls and thus enables meaningful statements about the performance of AL methods. To demonstrate the relevance of our protocol, we present a large-scale empirical study and benchmark for image classification spanning various data sets, query methods, AL settings, and training paradigms. Our findings clarify the inconsistent picture in the literature and enable us to give hands-on recommendations for practitioners. The benchmark is hosted at https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/realistic-al .

Lukas Klein, Carsten T. Lüth, Udo Schlegel et al.

Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics. We systematically incorporate vital design parameters like varied architectures and diverse input modalities, resulting in 7,560 examined combinations. Through LATEC, we showcase the high risk of conflicting metrics leading to unreliable rankings and consequently propose a more robust evaluation scheme. Further, we comprehensively evaluate various XAI methods to assist practitioners in selecting appropriate methods aligning with their needs. Curiously, the emerging top-performing method, Expected Gradients, is not examined in any relevant related study. LATEC reinforces its role in future XAI research by publicly releasing all 326k saliency maps and 378k metric scores as a (meta-)evaluation dataset. The benchmark is hosted at: https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/latec.

Lukas Klein, João B. S. Carvalho, Mennatallah El-Assady et al.

Explainable AI aims to render model behavior understandable by humans, which can be seen as an intermediate step in extracting causal relations from correlative patterns. Due to the high risk of possible fatal decisions in image-based clinical diagnostics, it is necessary to integrate explainable AI into these safety-critical systems. Current explanatory methods typically assign attribution scores to pixel regions in the input image, indicating their importance for a model's decision. However, they fall short when explaining why a visual feature is used. We propose a framework that utilizes interpretable disentangled representations for downstream-task prediction. Through visualizing the disentangled representations, we enable experts to investigate possible causation effects by leveraging their domain knowledge. Additionally, we deploy a multi-path attribution mapping for enriching and validating explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a synthetic benchmark suite and two medical datasets. We show that the framework not only acts as a catalyst for causal relation extraction but also enhances model robustness by enabling shortcut detection without the need for testing under distribution shifts.

Shuhan Xiao, Lukas Klein, Jens Petersen et al.

Identifying predictive covariates, which forecast individual treatment effectiveness, is crucial for decision-making across different disciplines such as personalized medicine. These covariates, referred to as biomarkers, are extracted from pre-treatment data, often within randomized controlled trials, and should be distinguished from prognostic biomarkers, which are independent of treatment assignment. Our study focuses on discovering predictive imaging biomarkers, specific image features, by leveraging pre-treatment images to uncover new causal relationships. Unlike labor-intensive approaches relying on handcrafted features prone to bias, we present a novel task of directly learning predictive features from images. We propose an evaluation protocol to assess a model's ability to identify predictive imaging biomarkers and differentiate them from purely prognostic ones by employing statistical testing and a comprehensive analysis of image feature attribution. We explore the suitability of deep learning models originally developed for estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) for this task, which have been assessed primarily for their precision of CATE estimation while overlooking the evaluation of imaging biomarker discovery. Our proof-of-concept analysis demonstrates the feasibility and potential of our approach in discovering and validating predictive imaging biomarkers from synthetic outcomes and real-world image datasets. Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/predictive_image_biomarker_analysis}.