mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Quantitative Evaluations on Saliency Methods: An Experimental Study

arXiv 2012.15616 ↗First posted 31 Dec 2020cs.AI cs.LGcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

It has been long debated that eXplainable AI (XAI) is an important topic, but it lacks rigorous definition and fair metrics. In this paper, we briefly summarize the status quo of the metrics, along with an exhaustive experimental study based on them, including faithfulness, localization, false-positives, sensitivity check, and stability. With the experimental results, we conclude that among all the methods we compare, no single explanation method dominates others in all metrics. Nonetheless, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) and Randomly Input Sampling for Explanation (RISE) perform fairly well in most of the metrics. Utilizing a set of filtered metrics, we further present a case study to diagnose the classification bases for models. While providing a comprehensive experimental study of metrics, we also examine measuring factors that are missed in current metrics and hope this valuable work could serve as a guide for future research.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 Dec 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 2.

10 papers.