Back to the Baseline: Examining Baseline Effects on Explainability Metrics
This addresses a critical methodological flaw in evaluating explainable AI methods, which is incremental but important for researchers and practitioners in the field.
The paper identifies that the choice of baseline in explainability metrics like Insertion and Deletion unfairly favors certain attribution methods, leading to contradictory results, and proposes a new baseline that better balances information removal and out-of-distribution avoidance.
Attribution methods are among the most prevalent techniques in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and are usually evaluated and compared using Fidelity metrics, with Insertion and Deletion being the most popular. These metrics rely on a baseline function to alter the pixels of the input image that the attribution map deems most important. In this work, we highlight a critical problem with these metrics: the choice of a given baseline will inevitably favour certain attribution methods over others. More concerningly, even a simple linear model with commonly used baselines contradicts itself by designating different optimal methods. A question then arises: which baseline should we use? We propose to study this problem through two desirable properties of a baseline: (i) that it removes information and (ii) that it does not produce overly out-of-distribution (OOD) images. We first show that none of the tested baselines satisfy both criteria, and there appears to be a trade-off among current baselines: either they remove information or they produce a sequence of OOD images. Finally, we introduce a novel baseline by leveraging recent work in feature visualisation to artificially produce a model-dependent baseline that removes information without being overly OOD, thus improving on the trade-off when compared to other existing baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/deel-ai-papers/Back-to-the-Baseline