Abstract
Recently, more and more eXplanatory Interactive machine Learning (XIL) methods have been proposed with the goal of extending a model's learning process by integrating human user supervision on the model's explanations. These methods were often developed independently, provide different motivations and stem from different applications. Notably, up to now, there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of these works. By identifying a common set of basic modules and providing a thorough discussion of these modules, our work, for the first time, comes up with a unification of the various methods into a single typology. This typology can thus be used to categorize existing and future XIL methods based on the identified modules. Moreover, our work contributes by surveying six existing XIL methods. In addition to benchmarking these methods on their overall ability to revise a model, we perform additional benchmarks regarding wrong reason revision, interaction efficiency, robustness to feedback quality, and the ability to revise a strongly corrupted model. Apart from introducing these novel benchmarking tasks, for improved quantitative evaluations, we further introduce a novel Wrong Reason (\wrnospace) metric which measures the average wrong reason activation in a model's explanations to complement a qualitative inspection. In our evaluations, all methods prove to revise a model successfully. However, we found significant differences between the methods on individual benchmark tasks, revealing valuable application-relevant aspects not only for comparing current methods but also to motivate the necessity of incorporating these benchmarks in the development of future XIL methods.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03668
