Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbation
About
As machine learning algorithms are increasingly applied to high impact yet high risk tasks, such as medical diagnosis or autonomous driving, it is critical that researchers can explain how such algorithms arrived at their predictions. In recent years, a number of image saliency methods have been developed to summarize where highly complex neural networks "look" in an image for evidence for their predictions. However, these techniques are limited by their heuristic nature and architectural constraints. In this paper, we make two main contributions: First, we propose a general framework for learning different kinds of explanations for any black box algorithm. Second, we specialise the framework to find the part of an image most responsible for a classifier decision. Unlike previous works, our method is model-agnostic and testable because it is grounded in explicit and interpretable image perturbations.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature Relevance Evaluation | ImageNet (test) | R (Feature Relevance)0.4 | 60 | |
| Saliency Map Localization | ILSVRC 2012 (val) | Proportion56.1 | 8 | |
| Object Recognition Faithfulness | ImageNet ILSVRC-2012 (val) | Avg Drop63.5 | 5 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | MIMII bandsaw 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.69 | 4 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | MIMII bearing 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.889 | 4 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | MIMII fan 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.976 | 4 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | MIMII gearbox 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.595 | 4 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | MIMII shaker 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.974 | 4 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | MIMII slider 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.943 | 4 | |
| XAI Faithfulness Evaluation | ToyADMOS ToyTank 1.0 (test) | Spearman Correlation0.921 | 4 |