Towards Benchmarking Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods
Lars Holmberg

TL;DR
This paper critically examines the capabilities and limitations of current explainability methods for neural networks, emphasizing the importance of benchmarking to develop trustworthy AI systems.
Contribution
It introduces a philosophical framework for evaluating explainability methods and presents a case study highlighting their dependence on human knowledge and reasoning.
Findings
Explainability methods require human domain knowledge to be effective.
Current methods are ambiguous and insufficient for building trust or making actionable decisions.
Benchmarking is essential for advancing trustworthy AI.
Abstract
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
