Anna Hedström

Anna Hedström, Philine Bommer, Kristoffer K. Wickstrøm et al.

One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method in the absence of ground truth explanation labels. Resolving this issue is of utmost importance as the evaluation outcomes generated by competing evaluation methods (or ''quality estimators''), which aim at measuring the same property of an explanation method, frequently present conflicting rankings. Such disagreements can be challenging for practitioners to interpret, thereby complicating their ability to select the best-performing explanation method. We address this problem through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI, which we define as ''the process of evaluating the evaluation method''. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator: its resilience to noise and reactivity to randomness, thus circumventing the need for ground truth labels. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through a series of experiments, targeting various open questions in XAI such as the selection and hyperparameter optimisation of quality estimators. Our work is released under an open-source license (https://github.com/annahedstroem/MetaQuantus) to serve as a development tool for XAI- and Machine Learning (ML) practitioners to verify and benchmark newly constructed quality estimators in a given explainability context. With this work, we provide the community with clear and theoretically-grounded guidance for identifying reliable evaluation methods, thus facilitating reproducibility in the field.

Philine Bommer, Marlene Kretschmer, Anna Hedström et al.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods shed light on the predictions of machine learning algorithms. Several different approaches exist and have already been applied in climate science. However, usually missing ground truth explanations complicate their evaluation and comparison, subsequently impeding the choice of the XAI method. Therefore, in this work, we introduce XAI evaluation in the climate context and discuss different desired explanation properties, namely robustness, faithfulness, randomization, complexity, and localization. To this end, we chose previous work as a case study where the decade of annual-mean temperature maps is predicted. After training both a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and a convolutional neural network (CNN), multiple XAI methods are applied and their skill scores in reference to a random uniform explanation are calculated for each property. Independent of the network, we find that XAI methods Integrated Gradients, layer-wise relevance propagation, and input times gradients exhibit considerable robustness, faithfulness, and complexity while sacrificing randomization performance. Sensitivity methods -- gradient, SmoothGrad, NoiseGrad, and FusionGrad, match the robustness skill but sacrifice faithfulness and complexity for randomization skill. We find architecture-dependent performance differences regarding robustness, complexity and localization skills of different XAI methods, highlighting the necessity for research task-specific evaluation. Overall, our work offers an overview of different evaluation properties in the climate science context and shows how to compare and benchmark different explanation methods, assessing their suitability based on strengths and weaknesses, for the specific research problem at hand. By that, we aim to support climate researchers in the selection of a suitable XAI method.

Anna Hedström, Leander Weber, Dilyara Bareeva et al.

The evaluation of explanation methods is a research topic that has not yet been explored deeply, however, since explainability is supposed to strengthen trust in artificial intelligence, it is necessary to systematically review and compare explanation methods in order to confirm their correctness. Until now, no tool with focus on XAI evaluation exists that exhaustively and speedily allows researchers to evaluate the performance of explanations of neural network predictions. To increase transparency and reproducibility in the field, we therefore built Quantus -- a comprehensive, evaluation toolkit in Python that includes a growing, well-organised collection of evaluation metrics and tutorials for evaluating explainable methods. The toolkit has been thoroughly tested and is available under an open-source license on PyPi (or on https://github.com/understandable-machine-intelligence-lab/Quantus/).

Anna Hedström, Leander Weber, Sebastian Lapuschkin et al.

The Model Parameter Randomisation Test (MPRT) is highly recognised in the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) community due to its fundamental evaluative criterion: explanations should be sensitive to the parameters of the model they seek to explain. However, recent studies have raised several methodological concerns for the empirical interpretation of MPRT. In response, we propose two modifications to the original test: Smooth MPRT and Efficient MPRT. The former reduces the impact of noise on evaluation outcomes via sampling, while the latter avoids the need for biased similarity measurements by re-interpreting the test through the increase in explanation complexity after full model randomisation. Our experiments show that these modifications enhance the metric reliability, facilitating a more trustworthy deployment of explanation methods.

Anna Hedström, Leander Weber, Sebastian Lapuschkin et al.

The Model Parameter Randomisation Test (MPRT) is widely acknowledged in the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) community for its well-motivated evaluative principle: that the explanation function should be sensitive to changes in the parameters of the model function. However, recent works have identified several methodological caveats for the empirical interpretation of MPRT. To address these caveats, we introduce two adaptations to the original MPRT -- Smooth MPRT and Efficient MPRT, where the former minimises the impact that noise has on the evaluation results through sampling and the latter circumvents the need for biased similarity measurements by re-interpreting the test through the explanation's rise in complexity, after full parameter randomisation. Our experimental results demonstrate that these proposed variants lead to improved metric reliability, thus enabling a more trustworthy application of XAI methods.

Kristoffer Wickstrøm, Marina Marie-Claire Höhne, Anna Hedström

The lack of ground truth explanation labels is a fundamental challenge for quantitative evaluation in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). This challenge becomes especially problematic when evaluation methods have numerous hyperparameters that must be specified by the user, as there is no ground truth to determine an optimal hyperparameter selection. It is typically not feasible to do an exhaustive search of hyperparameters so researchers typically make a normative choice based on similar studies in the literature, which provides great flexibility for the user. In this work, we illustrate how this flexibility can be exploited to manipulate the evaluation outcome. We frame this manipulation as an adversarial attack on the evaluation where seemingly innocent changes in hyperparameter setting significantly influence the evaluation outcome. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our manipulation across several datasets with large changes in evaluation outcomes across several explanation methods and models. Lastly, we propose a mitigation strategy based on ranking across hyperparameters that aims to provide robustness towards such manipulation. This work highlights the difficulty of conducting reliable XAI evaluation and emphasizes the importance of a holistic and transparent approach to evaluation in XAI.

Rémi Kazmierczak, Steve Azzolin, Eloïse Berthier et al.

We introduce PASTA (Perceptual Assessment System for explanaTion of Artificial Intelligence), a novel human-centric framework for evaluating eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques in computer vision. Our first contribution is the creation of the PASTA-dataset, the first large-scale benchmark that spans a diverse set of models and both saliency-based and concept-based explanation methods. This dataset enables robust, comparative analysis of XAI techniques based on human judgment. Our second contribution is an automated, data-driven benchmark that predicts human preferences using the PASTA-dataset. This scoring called PASTA-score method offers scalable, reliable, and consistent evaluation aligned with human perception. Additionally, our benchmark allows for comparisons between explanations across different modalities, an aspect previously unaddressed. We then propose to apply our scoring method to probe the interpretability of existing models and to build more human interpretable XAI methods.

Laura Kopf, Nils Feldhus, Kirill Bykov et al.

Automated interpretability research aims to identify concepts encoded in neural network features to enhance human understanding of model behavior. Within the context of large language models (LLMs) for natural language processing (NLP), current automated neuron-level feature description methods face two key challenges: limited robustness and the assumption that each neuron encodes a single concept (monosemanticity), despite increasing evidence of polysemanticity. This assumption restricts the expressiveness of feature descriptions and limits their ability to capture the full range of behaviors encoded in model internals. To address this, we introduce Polysemantic FeatuRe Identification and Scoring Method (PRISM), a novel framework specifically designed to capture the complexity of features in LLMs. Unlike approaches that assign a single description per neuron, common in many automated interpretability methods in NLP, PRISM produces more nuanced descriptions that account for both monosemantic and polysemantic behavior. We apply PRISM to LLMs and, through extensive benchmarking against existing methods, demonstrate that our approach produces more accurate and faithful feature descriptions, improving both overall description quality (via a description score) and the ability to capture distinct concepts when polysemanticity is present (via a polysemanticity score).

Anna Hedström, Salim I. Amoukou, Tom Bewley et al.

We introduce Mechanistic Error Reduction with Abstention (MERA), a principled framework for steering language models (LMs) to mitigate errors through selective, adaptive interventions. Unlike existing methods that rely on fixed, manually tuned steering strengths, often resulting in under or oversteering, MERA addresses these limitations by (i) optimising the intervention direction, and (ii) calibrating when, and how much to steer, thereby provably improving performance or abstaining when no confident correction is possible. Experiments across diverse datasets, and LM families demonstrate safe, effective, non-degrading error correction, and that MERA outperforms existing baselines. Moreover, MERA can be applied on top of existing steering techniques to further enhance their performance, establishing it as a general-purpose, and efficient approach to mechanistic activation steering.

Carlos Eiras-Franco, Anna Hedström, Marina M. -C. Höhne

Obtaining high-quality explanations of a model's output enables developers to identify and correct biases, align the system's behavior with human values, and ensure ethical compliance. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) practitioners rely on specific measures to gauge the quality of such explanations. These measures assess key attributes, such as how closely an explanation aligns with a model's decision process (faithfulness), how accurately it pinpoints the relevant input features (localization), and its consistency across different cases (robustness). Despite providing valuable information, these measures do not fully address a critical practitioner's concern: how does the quality of a given explanation compare to other potential explanations? Traditionally, the quality of an explanation has been assessed by comparing it to a randomly generated counterpart. This paper introduces an alternative: the Quality Gap Estimate (QGE). The QGE method offers a direct comparison to what can be viewed as the `inverse' explanation, one that conceptually represents the antithesis of the original explanation. Our extensive testing across multiple model architectures, datasets, and established quality metrics demonstrates that the QGE method is superior to the traditional approach. Furthermore, we show that QGE enhances the statistical reliability of these quality assessments. This advance represents a significant step toward a more insightful evaluation of explanations that enables a more effective inspection of a model's behavior.

Shanghua Liu, Anna Hedström, Deepak Hanike Basavegowda et al.

Grasslands are known for their high biodiversity and ability to provide multiple ecosystem services. Challenges in automating the identification of indicator plants are key obstacles to large-scale grassland monitoring. These challenges stem from the scarcity of extensive datasets, the distributional shifts between generic and grassland-specific datasets, and the inherent opacity of deep learning models. This paper delves into the latter two challenges, with a specific focus on transfer learning and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches to grassland monitoring, highlighting the novelty of XAI in this domain. We analyze various transfer learning methods to bridge the distributional gaps between generic and grassland-specific datasets. Additionally, we showcase how explainable AI techniques can unveil the model's domain adaptation capabilities, employing quantitative assessments to evaluate the model's proficiency in accurately centering relevant input features around the object of interest. This research contributes valuable insights for enhancing model performance through transfer learning and measuring domain adaptability with explainable AI, showing significant promise for broader applications within the agricultural community.

Kirill Bykov, Anna Hedström, Shinichi Nakajima et al.

Many efforts have been made for revealing the decision-making process of black-box learning machines such as deep neural networks, resulting in useful local and global explanation methods. For local explanation, stochasticity is known to help: a simple method, called SmoothGrad, has improved the visual quality of gradient-based attribution by adding noise to the input space and averaging the explanations of the noisy inputs. In this paper, we extend this idea and propose NoiseGrad that enhances both local and global explanation methods. Specifically, NoiseGrad introduces stochasticity in the weight parameter space, such that the decision boundary is perturbed. NoiseGrad is expected to enhance the local explanation, similarly to SmoothGrad, due to the dual relationship between the input perturbation and the decision boundary perturbation. We evaluate NoiseGrad and its fusion with SmoothGrad -- FusionGrad -- qualitatively and quantitatively with several evaluation criteria, and show that our novel approach significantly outperforms the baseline methods. Both NoiseGrad and FusionGrad are method-agnostic and as handy as SmoothGrad using a simple heuristic for the choice of the hyperparameter setting without the need of finetuning.