# An Experimental Investigation into the Evaluation of Explainability Methods

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16361 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16361/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 28 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 May 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.1556/) (2014)
- [ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0575/) (2014)
- [Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02391/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.04150/) (2015)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03825/) (2017)
- [Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Net](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6806/) (2014)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.01279/) (2019)
- [Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.07896/) (2020)
- [Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07538/) (2018)
- [Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.06321/) (2015)
- [Methods for Interpreting and Understanding Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07979/) (2017)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.11371/) (2020)
- [A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.07876/) (2020)
- [Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00631/) (2020)
- [Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.06861/) (2022)
- [One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03012/) (2019)
- [When Explanations Lie: Why Many Modified BP Attributions Fail](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.09818/) (2019)
- [On quantitative aspects of model interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.07584/) (2020)
- [CAMERAS: Enhanced Resolution And Sanity preserving Class Activation Mapping for image saliency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.10649/) (2021)
- [Poly-CAM: High resolution class activation map for convolutional neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.13359/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to help users to grasp the reasoning behind the predictions of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Many XAI approaches have emerged in recent years. Consequently, a subfield related to the evaluation of XAI methods has gained considerable attention, with the aim to determine which methods provide the best explanation using various approaches and criteria. However, the literature lacks a comparison of the evaluation metrics themselves, that one can use to evaluate XAI methods. This work aims to fill this gap by comparing 14 different metrics when applied to nine state-of-the-art XAI methods and three dummy methods (e.g., random saliency maps) used as references. Experimental results show which of these metrics produces highly correlated results, indicating potential redundancy. We also demonstrate the significant impact of varying the baseline hyperparameter on the evaluation metric values. Finally, we use dummy methods to assess the reliability of metrics in terms of ranking, pointing out their limitations.