mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

BEExAI: Benchmark to Evaluate Explainable AI

arXiv 2407.19897 ↗First posted 29 Jul 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent research in explainability has given rise to numerous post-hoc attribution methods aimed at enhancing our comprehension of the outputs of black-box machine learning models. However, evaluating the quality of explanations lacks a cohesive approach and a consensus on the methodology for deriving quantitative metrics that gauge the efficacy of explainability post-hoc attribution methods. Furthermore, with the development of increasingly complex deep learning models for diverse data applications, the need for a reliable way of measuring the quality and correctness of explanations is becoming critical. We address this by proposing BEExAI, a benchmark tool that allows large-scale comparison of different post-hoc XAI methods, employing a set of selected evaluation metrics.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2024.

Builds on

27 of 42 references.

References · 27

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  6. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  7. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  8. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
  9. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
  10. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  11. 2020Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorchcited by 542
  12. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
15 more
  1. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 310
  2. 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 309
  3. 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
  4. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
  5. 2018Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensemblescited by 279
  6. 2020Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanationscited by 185
  7. 2022Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyondcited by 171
  8. 2017OpenML Benchmarking Suitescited by 169
  9. 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 158
  10. 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 125
  11. 2023Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directionscited by 123
  12. 2021The Out-of-Distribution Problem in Explainability and Search Methods for Feature Importance Explanationscited by 86
  13. 2021Synthetic Benchmarks for Scientific Research in Explainable Machine Learningcited by 59
  14. 2021Software for Dataset-wide XAI: From Local Explanations to Global Insights with Zennit, CoRelAy, and ViRelAycited by 53
  15. 2022BASED-XAI: Breaking Ablation Studies Down for Explainable Artificial Intelligencecited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 7; 2026: 1.

11 papers.