mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Classification Metrics for Image Explanations: Towards Building Reliable XAI-Evaluations

arXiv 2406.05068 ↗First posted 7 Jun 2024cs.CV cs.AI cs.HCcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Decision processes of computer vision models - especially deep neural networks - are opaque in nature, meaning that these decisions cannot be understood by humans. Thus, over the last years, many methods to provide human-understandable explanations have been proposed. For image classification, the most common group are saliency methods, which provide (super-)pixelwise feature attribution scores for input images. But their evaluation still poses a problem, as their results cannot be simply compared to the unknown ground truth. To overcome this, a slew of different proxy metrics have been defined, which are - as the explainability methods themselves - often built on intuition and thus, are possibly unreliable. In this paper, new evaluation metrics for saliency methods are developed and common saliency methods are benchmarked on ImageNet. In addition, a scheme for reliability evaluation of such metrics is proposed that is based on concepts from psychometric testing. The used code can be found at https://github.com/lelo204/ClassificationMetricsForImageExplanations .

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2024.

Builds on

25 of 41 references.

References · 25

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  6. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  7. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  8. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
  9. 2017Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 936
  10. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
  11. 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
  12. 2016Layer-wise Relevance Propagation for Neural Networks with Local Renormalization Layerscited by 197
13 more
  1. 2022Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyondcited by 171
  2. 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
  3. 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 125
  4. 2019Sanity Checks for Saliency Metricscited by 119
  5. 2019Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approachescited by 101
  6. 2022Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanationscited by 84
  7. 2023B-cos Alignment for Inherently Interpretable CNNs and Vision Transformerscited by 31
  8. 2022Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methodscited by 28
  9. 2021Focus! Rating XAI Methods and Finding Biasescited by 20
  10. 2021Revisiting Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 20
  11. 2022Saliency Cards: A Framework to Characterize and Compare Saliency Methodscited by 11
  12. 2020Data Representing Ground-Truth Explanations to Evaluate XAI Methodscited by 7
  13. 2023Sanity Checks for Saliency Methods Explaining Object Detectorscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 3.

7 papers.