# Towards Benchmarking Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12120 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.12120/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02391/) (2016)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1311.2901/) (2013)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.11279/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [In Search of Lost Domain Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.01434/) (2020)
- [Concept Bottleneck Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.04612/) (2020)
- [The Mythos of Model Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.03490/) (2016)
- [Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.07896/) (2020)
- [Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.00069/) (2018)
- [A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.07374/) (2019)
- [Causality for Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.10500/) (2019)
- [Towards Fairer Datasets: Filtering and Balancing the Distribution of the People Subtree in the ImageNet Hierarchy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.07726/) (2019)
- [50 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.10104/) (2018)
- [Desiderata for Representation Learning: A Causal Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.03795/) (2021)
- [Concept-based model explanations for Electronic Health Records](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.02308/) (2020)
- [Interpreting Interpretations: Organizing Attribution Methods by Criteria](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.07985/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Red Teaming Deep Neural Networks with Feature Synthesis Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.10894/) (2023)
- [Understanding polysemanticity in neural networks through coding theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.17975/) (2024)
- [Towards generating more interpretable counterfactuals via concept vectors: a preliminary study on chest X-rays](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04058/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The currently dominating artificial intelligence and machine learning technology, neural networks, builds on inductive statistical learning. Neural networks of today are information processing systems void of understanding and reasoning capabilities, consequently, they cannot explain promoted decisions in a humanly valid form. In this work, we revisit and use fundamental philosophy of science theories as an analytical lens with the goal of revealing, what can be expected, and more importantly, not expected, from methods that aim to explain decisions promoted by a neural network. By conducting a case study we investigate a selection of explainability method's performance over two mundane domains, animals and headgear. Through our study, we lay bare that the usefulness of these methods relies on human domain knowledge and our ability to understand, generalise and reason. The explainability methods can be useful when the goal is to gain further insights into a trained neural network's strengths and weaknesses. If our aim instead is to use these explainability methods to promote actionable decisions or build trust in ML-models they need to be less ambiguous than they are today. In this work, we conclude from our study, that benchmarking explainability methods, is a central quest towards trustworthy artificial intelligence and machine learning.