Marta Oliveira

Marta Oliveira, Rick Wilming, Benedict Clark et al.

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are frequently and successfully used in medical prediction tasks. They are often used in combination with transfer learning, leading to improved performance when training data for the task are scarce. The resulting models are highly complex and typically do not provide any insight into their predictive mechanisms, motivating the field of "explainable" artificial intelligence (XAI). However, previous studies have rarely quantitatively evaluated the "explanation performance" of XAI methods against ground-truth data, and transfer learning and its influence on objective measures of explanation performance has not been investigated. Here, we propose a benchmark dataset that allows for quantifying explanation performance in a realistic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification task. We employ this benchmark to understand the influence of transfer learning on the quality of explanations. Experimental results show that popular XAI methods applied to the same underlying model differ vastly in performance, even when considering only correctly classified examples. We further observe that explanation performance strongly depends on the task used for pre-training and the number of CNN layers pre-trained. These results hold after correcting for a substantial correlation between explanation and classification performance.

Benedict Clark, Rick Wilming, Artur Dox et al.

The evolving landscape of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to improve the interpretability of intricate machine learning (ML) models, yet faces challenges in formalisation and empirical validation, being an inherently unsupervised process. In this paper, we bring together various benchmark datasets and novel performance metrics in an initial benchmarking platform, the Explainable AI Comparison Toolkit (EXACT), providing a standardised foundation for evaluating XAI methods. Our datasets incorporate ground truth explanations for class-conditional features, and leveraging novel quantitative metrics, this platform assesses the performance of post-hoc XAI methods in the quality of the explanations they produce. Our recent findings have highlighted the limitations of popular XAI methods, as they often struggle to surpass random baselines, attributing significance to irrelevant features. Moreover, we show the variability in explanations derived from different equally performing model architectures. This initial benchmarking platform therefore aims to allow XAI researchers to test and assure the high quality of their newly developed methods.

Benedict Clark, Marta Oliveira, Rick Wilming et al.

Explainable AI (XAI) promises to provide insight into machine learning models' decision processes, where one goal is to identify failures such as shortcut learning. This promise relies on the field's assumption that input features marked as important by an XAI must contain information about the target variable. However, it is unclear whether informativeness is indeed the main driver of importance attribution in practice, or if other data properties such as statistical suppression, novelty at test-time, or high feature salience substantially contribute. To clarify this, we trained deep learning models on three variants of a binary image classification task, in which translucent watermarks are either absent, act as class-dependent confounds, or represent class-independent noise. Results for five popular attribution methods show substantially elevated relative importance in watermarked areas (RIW) for all models regardless of the training setting ($R^2 \geq .45$). By contrast, whether the presence of watermarks is class-dependent or not only has a marginal effect on RIW ($R^2 \leq .03$), despite a clear impact impact on model performance and generalisation ability. XAI methods show similar behaviour to model-agnostic edge detection filters and attribute substantially less importance to watermarks when bright image intensities are encoded by smaller instead of larger feature values. These results indicate that importance attribution is most strongly driven by the salience of image structures at test time rather than statistical associations learned by machine learning models. Previous studies demonstrating successful XAI application should be reevaluated with respect to a possibly spurious concurrency of feature salience and informativeness, and workflows using feature attribution methods as building blocks should be scrutinised.

Rick Wilming, Artur Dox, Hjalmar Schulz et al.

Large pre-trained language models have become a crucial backbone for many downstream tasks in natural language processing (NLP), and while they are trained on a plethora of data containing a variety of biases, such as gender biases, it has been shown that they can also inherit such biases in their weights, potentially affecting their prediction behavior. However, it is unclear to what extent these biases also affect feature attributions generated by applying "explainable artificial intelligence" (XAI) techniques, possibly in unfavorable ways. To systematically study this question, we create a gender-controlled text dataset, GECO, in which the alteration of grammatical gender forms induces class-specific words and provides ground truth feature attributions for gender classification tasks. This enables an objective evaluation of the correctness of XAI methods. We apply this dataset to the pre-trained BERT model, which we fine-tune to different degrees, to quantitatively measure how pre-training induces undesirable bias in feature attributions and to what extent fine-tuning can mitigate such explanation bias. To this extent, we provide GECOBench, a rigorous quantitative evaluation framework for benchmarking popular XAI methods. We show a clear dependency between explanation performance and the number of fine-tuned layers, where XAI methods are observed to benefit particularly from fine-tuning or complete retraining of embedding layers.