Shedding Light on Black Box Machine Learning Algorithms: Development of an Axiomatic Framework to Assess the Quality of Methods that Explain Individual Predictions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
From self-driving vehicles and back-flipping robots to virtual assistants who book our next appointment at the hair salon or at that restaurant for dinner - machine learning systems are becoming increasingly ubiquitous. The main reason for this is that these methods boast remarkable predictive capabilities. However, most of these models remain black boxes, meaning that it is very challenging for humans to follow and understand their intricate inner workings. Consequently, interpretability has suffered under this ever-increasing complexity of machine learning models. Especially with regards to new regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the necessity for plausibility and verifiability of predictions made by these black boxes is indispensable. Driven by the needs of industry and practice, the research community has recognised this interpretability problem and focussed on developing a growing number of so-called explanation methods over the past few years. These methods explain individual predictions made by black box machine learning models and help to recover some of the lost interpretability. With the proliferation of these explanation methods, it is, however, often unclear, which explanation method offers a higher explanation quality, or is generally better-suited for the situation at hand. In this thesis, we thus propose an axiomatic framework, which allows comparing the quality of different explanation methods amongst each other. Through experimental validation, we find that the developed framework is useful to assess the explanation quality of different explanation methods and reach conclusions that are consistent with independent research.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 4; 2023: 1.
6 papers.
- 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
- 2022Interpretation of Black Box NLP Models: A Surveycited by 9
- 2021Evaluating the Correctness of Explainable AI Algorithms for Classificationcited by 8
- 2023On the Soundness of XAI in Prognostics and Health Management (PHM)cited by 6
- 2022On the Robustness of Explanations of Deep Neural Network Models: A Surveycited by 5
- 2022On Understanding the Influence of Controllable Factors with a Feature Attribution Algorithm: a Medical Case Studycited by 1
- 2023On the Soundness of XAI in Prognostics and Health Management (PHM)9 Mar 2023
- 2022On the Robustness of Explanations of Deep Neural Network Models: A Survey9 Nov 2022
- 2022Interpretation of Black Box NLP Models: A Survey31 Mar 2022
- 2022On Understanding the Influence of Controllable Factors with a Feature Attribution Algorithm: a Medical Case Study23 Mar 2022
- 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI20 Jan 2022
- 2021Evaluating the Correctness of Explainable AI Algorithms for Classification20 May 2021