  There has been a significant surge of interest recently around the concept of
explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), where the goal is to produce an
interpretation for a decision made by a machine learning algorithm. Of
particular interest is the interpretation of how deep neural networks make
decisions, given the complexity and `black box' nature of such networks. Given
the infancy of the field, there has been very limited exploration into the
assessment of the performance of explainability methods, with most evaluations
centered around subjective visual interpretation of the produced
interpretations. In this study, we explore a more machine-centric strategy for
quantifying the performance of explainability methods on deep neural networks
via the notion of decision-making impact analysis. We introduce two
quantitative performance metrics: i) Impact Score, which assesses the
percentage of critical factors with either strong confidence reduction impact
or decision changing impact, and ii) Impact Coverage, which assesses the
percentage coverage of adversarially impacted factors in the input. A
comprehensive analysis using this approach was conducted on several
state-of-the-art explainability methods (LIME, SHAP, Expected Gradients,
GSInquire) on a ResNet-50 deep convolutional neural network using a subset of
ImageNet for the task of image classification. Experimental results show that
the critical regions identified by LIME within the tested images had the lowest
impact on the decision-making process of the network (~38%), with progressive
increase in decision-making impact for SHAP (~44%), Expected Gradients (~51%),
and GSInquire (~76%). While by no means perfect, the hope is that the proposed
machine-centric strategy helps push the conversation forward towards better
metrics for evaluating explainability methods and improve trust in deep neural
networks.
