New Definitions and Evaluations for Saliency Methods: Staying Intrinsic, Complete and Sound
This work addresses the need for more robust evaluation of saliency methods in explainable AI, offering incremental improvements to existing frameworks.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating saliency methods in deep learning by highlighting issues with current causality inferences and introduces new metrics based on completeness and soundness to improve evaluation, showing that a simple method matches or outperforms prior ones in these metrics.
Saliency methods compute heat maps that highlight portions of an input that were most {\em important} for the label assigned to it by a deep net. Evaluations of saliency methods convert this heat map into a new {\em masked input} by retaining the $k$ highest-ranked pixels of the original input and replacing the rest with \textquotedblleft uninformative\textquotedblright\ pixels, and checking if the net's output is mostly unchanged. This is usually seen as an {\em explanation} of the output, but the current paper highlights reasons why this inference of causality may be suspect. Inspired by logic concepts of {\em completeness \& soundness}, it observes that the above type of evaluation focuses on completeness of the explanation, but ignores soundness. New evaluation metrics are introduced to capture both notions, while staying in an {\em intrinsic} framework -- i.e., using the dataset and the net, but no separately trained nets, human evaluations, etc. A simple saliency method is described that matches or outperforms prior methods in the evaluations. Experiments also suggest new intrinsic justifications, based on soundness, for popular heuristic tricks such as TV regularization and upsampling.