[20] Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. Evaluating explainable ai: Which algorithmic explanations help users predict model behavior? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2020.
[21] Hua Shen and Ting-Hao Huang. How useful are the machine-generated interpretations to general users? a human evaluation on guessing the incorrectly predicted labels. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, volume 8, pages 168-172, 2020.
[22] Julien Colin, Thomas Fel, Rémi Cadène, and Thomas Serre. What i cannot predict, i do not understand: A human-centered evaluation framework for explainability methods. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021.
[23] Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Nicole Meister, Vikram V. Ramaswamy, Ruth Fong, and Olga Russakovsky. HIVE: Evaluating the human interpretability of visual explanations. In Proceedings of the IEEE European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022.
[24] Giang Nguyen, Daeyoung Kim, and Anh Nguyen. The effectiveness of feature attribution methods and its correlation with automatic evaluation scores. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021.
[25] Leon Sixt, Martin Schuessler, Oana-Iuliana Popescu, Philipp Weiß, and Tim Landgraf. Do users benefit from interpretable vision? a user study, baseline, and dataset. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022.
[26] Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, et al. Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav). In International conference on machine learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018.
[27] Amirata Ghorbani, James Wexler, James Y Zou, and Been Kim. Towards automatic concept-based explanations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 9273-9282, 2019.
[28] Ruihan Zhang, Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Krista A Ehinger, and Benjamin IP Rubinstein. Invertible concept-based explanations for cnn models with non-negative concept activation vectors. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 11682-11690, 2021.
[29] Thomas Fel, Agustin Picard, Louis Bethune, Thibaut Boissin, David Vigouroux, Julien Colin, Rémi Cadène, and Thomas Serre. Craft: Concept recursive activation factorization for explainability. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023.
[30] Mara Graziani, An-phi Nguyen, Laura O'Mahony, Henning Müller, and Vincent Andrearczyk. Concept discovery and dataset exploration with singular value decomposition. In ICLR 2023 Workshop on Pitfalls of limited data and computation for Trustworthy ML, 2023.
[31] James Genone and Tania Lombrozo. Concept possession, experimental semantics, and hybrid theories of reference. Philosophical Psychology, 25(5):717-742, 2012.
[32] Vitali Petsiuk, Abir Das, and Kate Saenko. Rise: Randomized input sampling for explanation of black-box models. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2018.
[33] Umang Bhatt, Adrian Weller, and José M. F. Moura. Evaluating and aggregating feature-based model explanations. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2020.
[34] Johannes Haug, Stefan Zurn, Peter El-Jiz, and Gjergji Kasneci. On baselines for local feature attributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00905, 2021.
[35] Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Xuanqing Liu, Pradeep Ravikumar, Seungyeon Kim, Sanjiv Kumar, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Evaluations and methods for explanation through robustness analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021.
[36] Pieter-Jan Kindermans, Sara Hooker, Julius Adebayo, Maximilian Alber, Kristof T Schütt, Sven Dähne, Dumitru Erhan, and Been Kim. The (un) reliability of saliency methods. 2019.
[37] Pascal Sturmfels, Scott Lundberg, and Su-In Lee. Visualizing the impact of feature attribution baselines. Distill, 2020.
[38] Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, et al. Toy models of superposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10652, 2022.