EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to help users to grasp the reasoning behind the predictions of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Many XAI approaches have emerged in recent years. Consequently, a subfield related to the evaluation of XAI methods has gained considerable attention, with the aim to determine which methods provide the best explanation using various approaches and criteria. However, the literature lacks a comparison of the evaluation metrics themselves, that one can use to evaluate XAI methods. This work aims to fill this gap by comparing 14 different metrics when applied to nine state-of-the-art XAI methods and three dummy methods (e.g., random saliency maps) used as references. Experimental results show which of these metrics produces highly correlated results, indicating potential redundancy. We also demonstrate the significant impact of varying the baseline hyperparameter on the evaluation metric values. Finally, we use dummy methods to assess the reliability of metrics in terms of ranking, pointing out their limitations.
The need for Explainable AI is increasing with the development of deep learning. The saliency maps derived from convolutional neural networks generally fail in localizing with accuracy the image features justifying the network prediction. This is because those maps are either low-resolution as for CAM [Zhou et al., 2016], or smooth as for perturbation-based methods [Zeiler and Fergus, 2014], or do correspond to a large number of widespread peaky spots as for gradient-based approaches [Sundararajan et al., 2017, Smilkov et al., 2017]. In contrast, our work proposes to combine the information from earlier network layers with the one from later layers to produce a high resolution Class Activation Map that is competitive with the previous art in term of insertion-deletion faithfulness metrics, while outperforming it in term of precision of class-specific features localization.