# Precise Benchmarking of Explainable AI Attribution Methods

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03161 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03161/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [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)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1311.2901/) (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)
- [Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.11063/) (2017)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.03296/) (2017)
- [Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.01279/) (2019)
- [Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07538/) (2018)
- [A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.10758/) (2018)
- [European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.08813/) (2016)
- [Top-down Neural Attention by Excitation Backprop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.00507/) (2016)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00631/) (2020)
- [HIVE: Evaluating the Human Interpretability of Visual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.03184/) (2021)
- [The effectiveness of feature attribution methods and its correlation with automatic evaluation scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.14944/) (2021)
- [Visualizing Deep Networks by Optimizing with Integrated Gradients](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.00954/) (2019)
- [Synthetic Benchmarks for Scientific Research in Explainable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.12543/) (2021)
- [Visual Explanation by Interpretation: Improving Visual Feedback Capabilities of Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.06302/) (2017)
- [To trust or not to trust an explanation: using LEAF to evaluate local linear XAI methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.00461/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [How Well Do Feature-Additive Explainers Explain Feature-Additive Predictors?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18496/) (2023)
- [Beyond Accuracy: On the Effects of Fine-tuning Towards Vision-Language Model's Prediction Rationality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13333/) (2024)
- [Toward Low-Latency Vision-Language Models with Doubly-Correct Predictions in Egocentric Visual Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25160/) (2026)
- [HiLRP: Toward One Trustworthy Explanation for Vision Transformer: Conservation-Valid Attribution via Attention Primitives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01282/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The rationale behind a deep learning model's output is often difficult to understand by humans. EXplainable AI (XAI) aims at solving this by developing methods that improve interpretability and explainability of machine learning models. Reliable evaluation metrics are needed to assess and compare different XAI methods. We propose a novel evaluation approach for benchmarking state-of-the-art XAI attribution methods. Our proposal consists of a synthetic classification model accompanied by its derived ground truth explanations allowing high precision representation of input nodes contributions. We also propose new high-fidelity metrics to quantify the difference between explanations of the investigated XAI method and those derived from the synthetic model. Our metrics allow assessment of explanations in terms of precision and recall separately. Also, we propose metrics to independently evaluate negative or positive contributions of inputs. Our proposal provides deeper insights into XAI methods output. We investigate our proposal by constructing a synthetic convolutional image classification model and benchmarking several widely used XAI attribution methods using our evaluation approach. We compare our results with established prior XAI evaluation metrics. By deriving the ground truth directly from the constructed model in our method, we ensure the absence of bias, e.g., subjective either based on the training set. Our experimental results provide novel insights into the performance of Guided-Backprop and Smoothgrad XAI methods that are widely in use. Both have good precision and recall scores among positively contributing pixels (0.7, 0.76 and 0.7, 0.77, respectively), but poor precision scores among negatively contributing pixels (0.44, 0.61 and 0.47, 0.75, resp.). The recall scores in the latter case remain close. We show that our metrics are among the fastest in terms of execution time.