Aggregating explanation methods for stable and robust explainability
arXiv:1903.00519
Abstract
Despite a growing literature on explaining neural networks, no consensus has been reached on how to explain a neural network decision or how to evaluate an explanation. Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we investigate schemes to combine explanation methods and reduce model uncertainty to obtain a single aggregated explanation. We provide evidence that the aggregation is better at identifying important features, than on individual methods. Adversarial attacks on explanations is a recent active research topic. As our second contribution, we present evidence that aggregate explanations are much more robust to attacks than individual explanation methods.
References in corpus (18)
- Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition
- Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms
- ADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method
- What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?
- Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks
- Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences
- Ensemble Adversarial Training: Attacks and Defenses
- Explaining NonLinear Classification Decisions with Deep Taylor Decomposition
- SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise
- Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps
- Visualizing Deep Neural Network Decisions: Prediction Difference Analysis
- A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks
- Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blame
- Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulation
- A Human-Grounded Evaluation Benchmark for Local Explanations of Machine Learning
- Fairwashing: the risk of rationalization
- Interpretable Deep Learning under Fire
- IROF: a low resource evaluation metric for explanation methods