Crowdsourcing Evaluation of Saliency-Based XAI Methods

• Published in: Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Applied Data Science Track Vol. 12979; pp. 431 - 446
• Main Authors: Lu, Xiaotian, Tolmachev, Arseny, Yamamoto, Tatsuya, Takeuchi, Koh, Okajima, Seiji, Takebayashi, Tomoyoshi, Maruhashi, Koji, Kashima, Hisashi
• Format: Book Chapter
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Springer International Publishing AG 2021; Springer International Publishing
• Series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science
• Subjects: Crowdsourcing; Evaluation; Explainable AI; Interpretability
• ISBN: 9783030865160; 3030865169
• ISSN: 0302-9743; 1611-3349
• DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-86517-7_27

Understanding the reasons behind the predictions made by deep neural networks is critical for gaining human trust in many important applications, which is reflected in the increasing demand for explainability in AI (XAI) in recent years. Saliency-based feature attribution methods, which highlight important parts of images that contribute to decisions by classifiers, are often used as XAI methods, especially in the field of computer vision. In order to compare various saliency-based XAI methods quantitatively, several approaches for automated evaluation schemes have been proposed; however, there is no guarantee that such automated evaluation metrics correctly evaluate explainability, and a high rating by an automated evaluation scheme does not necessarily mean a high explainability for humans. In this study, instead of the automated evaluation, we propose a new human-based evaluation scheme using crowdsourcing to evaluate XAI methods. Our method is inspired by a human computation game, “Peek-a-boom”, and can efficiently compare different XAI methods by exploiting the power of crowds. We evaluate the saliency maps of various XAI methods on two datasets with automated and crowd-based evaluation schemes. Our experiments show that the result of our crowd-based evaluation scheme is different from those of automated evaluation schemes. In addition, we regard the crowd-based evaluation results as ground truths and provide a quantitative performance measure to compare different automated evaluation schemes. We also discuss the impact of crowd workers on the results and show that the varying ability of crowd workers does not significantly impact the results.