Cited by 10Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

REVEL Framework to Measure Local Linear Explanations for Black‐Box Models: Deep Learning Image Classification Case Study

Open access
Sevillano-García, Iván, Luengo, Julián, Herrera, Francisco·2023·International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Abstract

Explainable artificial intelligence is proposed to provide explanations for reasoning performed by artificial intelligence. There is no consensus on how to evaluate the quality of these explanations, since even the definition of explanation itself is not clear in the literature. In particular, for the widely known local linear explanations, there are qualitative proposals for the evaluation of explanations, although they suffer from theoretical inconsistencies. The case of image is even more problematic, where a visual explanation seems to explain a decision while detecting edges is what it really does. There are a large number of metrics in the literature specialized in quantitatively measuring different qualitative aspects, so we should be able to develop metrics capable of measuring in a robust and correct way the desirable aspects of the explanations. Some previous papers have attempted to develop new measures for this purpose. However, these measures suffer from lack of objectivity or lack of mathematical consistency, such as saturation or lack of smoothness. In this paper, we propose a procedure called REVEL to evaluate different aspects concerning the quality of explanations with a theoretically coherent development which do not have the problems of the previous measures. This procedure has several advances in the state of the art: it standardizes the concepts of explanation and develops a series of metrics not only to be able to compare between them but also to obtain absolute information regarding the explanation itself. The experiments have been carried out on four image datasets as benchmark where we show REVEL’s descriptive and analytical power.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2023/8068569

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Natural language explanations, quantitative measures of explanation quality, and models with formal symbolic basis (neural-symbolic learning and reasoning) are key for explanations to be understood by non-expert audience.

    “Natural language explanations [27,67], quantitative measures of the quality of explanations [68,69], and models that support their learning process with formal symbolic basis such as language, rules, compositional relationships or knowledge graphs (neural-symbolic learning and reasoning [66]) are key for explanations to be understood by non-expert audience.”

    From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Introduction and Section 2.5 argue that robust quantitative metrics are needed to evaluate explanation quality, supporting the part of the sentence to which this citation is attached. Our copy does not establish that such metrics are key to making explanations understandable to a non-expert audience; the paper focuses on evaluating explanations rather than testing audience comprehension. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. 10.1002/int.23022 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.010 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/3236009 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/widm.1391 · DOI
  5. 10.7717/peerj-cs.479 · DOI
  6. GilpinL. H. BauD. YuanB. Z. BajwaA. SpecterM. andKagalL. Explaining explanations: an overview of interpretability of machine learning Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) October 2018 Turin Italy IEEE 80–89. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Sevillano-GarcíaI. Luengo-MartínJ. andHerreraF. Revel framework to measure local linear explanations for black-box models: Deep learning image classification case of study 2022 https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06154. · arXiv
  8. Slack D., 2021, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 9391
  9. RibeiroM. T. SinghS. andGuestrinC. “Why should i trust you?”: explaining the predictions of any classifier Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining KDD ’16 October 2016 New York NY USA Association for Computing Machinery 1135–1144. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Lundberg S. M., 2017, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 4765
  11. 10.1007/978-3-030-33850-3_5 · DOI
  12. Schallner L., 2019, Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 147
  13. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2980581 · DOI
  14. RosenfeldA. Better metrics for evaluating explainable artificial intelligence Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems May 2021 London UK 45–50.
  15. Gentile C., 1998, Linear hinge loss and average margin, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 11, 225
  16. Krizhevsky A., 2009, Learning Multiple Layers of Features From Tiny Images
  17. XiaoH. RasulK. andVollgrafR. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms 2017 https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07747. · arXiv
  18. CohenG. AfsharS. TapsonJ. andVan SchaikA. Emnist: extending mnist to handwritten letters Proceedings of the 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) May 2017 Anchorage AL USA IEEE 2921–2926. · DOI
  19. TanM.andLeQ. Efficientnet: rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning June 2019 Montreal Canada 6105–6114.
  20. 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sevillano-García, I., Luengo, J., & Herrera, F.
Affiliations
Universidad de Granada (ES)
Corresponding author
Sevillano-García, Iván
Venue
International Journal of Intelligent Systems
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-01
Volume
2023
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0884-8173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-111X
OpenAlex
W4379228879
Cited by
10
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2020-119478GBI00)
  • Universidad de Granada (6717, 5987)
  • Junta de Andalucía (P18-FR-4961)
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (EQC2018-005084-P)
  • European Regional Development Fund
  • Consejería de Conocimiento, Investigación y Universidad, Junta de Andalucía (SOMM17/6110/UGR)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
explainable AI, explanation quality evaluation, black-box models, deep learning image classification, visual explanations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review