EvaluateXAI:评估软件分析任务中基于规则的 XAI 技术的可靠性和一致性的框架

IF 3.7 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Md. Abdul Awal, Chanchal K. Roy
{"title":"EvaluateXAI:评估软件分析任务中基于规则的 XAI 技术的可靠性和一致性的框架","authors":"Md. Abdul Awal,&nbsp;Chanchal K. Roy","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2024.112159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The advancement of machine learning (ML) models has led to the development of ML-based approaches to improve numerous software engineering tasks in software maintenance and evolution. Nevertheless, research indicates that despite their potential successes, ML models may not be employed in real-world scenarios because they often remain a black box to practitioners, lacking explainability in their reasoning. Recently, various rule-based model-agnostic Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, such as PyExplainer and LIME, have been employed to explain the predictions of ML models in software analytics tasks. In this paper, we assess the ability of these techniques, particularly the state-of-the-art PyExplainer and LIME, to generate reliable and consistent explanations for ML models across various software analytics tasks, including Just-in-Time (JIT) defect prediction, clone detection, and the classification of useful code review comments. Our manual investigations find inconsistencies and anomalies in the explanations generated by these techniques. Therefore, we design a novel framework: Evaluation of Explainable AI (<em>EvaluateXAI</em>), along with granular-level evaluation metrics, to automatically assess the effectiveness of rule-based XAI techniques in generating reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks. After conducting in-depth experiments involving seven state-of-the-art ML models trained on five datasets and six evaluation metrics, we find that none of the evaluation metrics reached 100%, indicating the unreliability of the explanations generated by XAI techniques. Additionally, PyExplainer and LIME failed to provide consistent explanations for 86.11% and 77.78% of the experimental combinations, respectively. Therefore, our experimental findings emphasize the necessity for further research in XAI to produce reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Systems and Software","volume":"217 ","pages":"Article 112159"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EvaluateXAI: A framework to evaluate the reliability and consistency of rule-based XAI techniques for software analytics tasks\",\"authors\":\"Md. Abdul Awal,&nbsp;Chanchal K. Roy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jss.2024.112159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The advancement of machine learning (ML) models has led to the development of ML-based approaches to improve numerous software engineering tasks in software maintenance and evolution. Nevertheless, research indicates that despite their potential successes, ML models may not be employed in real-world scenarios because they often remain a black box to practitioners, lacking explainability in their reasoning. Recently, various rule-based model-agnostic Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, such as PyExplainer and LIME, have been employed to explain the predictions of ML models in software analytics tasks. In this paper, we assess the ability of these techniques, particularly the state-of-the-art PyExplainer and LIME, to generate reliable and consistent explanations for ML models across various software analytics tasks, including Just-in-Time (JIT) defect prediction, clone detection, and the classification of useful code review comments. Our manual investigations find inconsistencies and anomalies in the explanations generated by these techniques. Therefore, we design a novel framework: Evaluation of Explainable AI (<em>EvaluateXAI</em>), along with granular-level evaluation metrics, to automatically assess the effectiveness of rule-based XAI techniques in generating reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks. After conducting in-depth experiments involving seven state-of-the-art ML models trained on five datasets and six evaluation metrics, we find that none of the evaluation metrics reached 100%, indicating the unreliability of the explanations generated by XAI techniques. Additionally, PyExplainer and LIME failed to provide consistent explanations for 86.11% and 77.78% of the experimental combinations, respectively. Therefore, our experimental findings emphasize the necessity for further research in XAI to produce reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Systems and Software\",\"volume\":\"217 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112159\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Systems and Software\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121224002048\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Systems and Software","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121224002048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器学习(ML)模型的进步推动了基于 ML 的方法的发展,以改进软件维护和演进中的众多软件工程任务。然而,研究表明,尽管 ML 模型有可能取得成功,但在现实世界中可能无法使用,因为对于从业人员来说,这些模型往往是一个黑盒子,其推理缺乏可解释性。最近,PyExplainer 和 LIME 等各种基于规则的、与模型无关的可解释人工智能(XAI)技术被用来解释软件分析任务中 ML 模型的预测。在本文中,我们评估了这些技术(尤其是最先进的 PyExplainer 和 LIME)在各种软件分析任务中为 ML 模型生成可靠、一致的解释的能力,包括及时(JIT)缺陷预测、克隆检测和有用代码审查评论分类。我们的人工调查发现,这些技术生成的解释存在不一致和异常。因此,我们设计了一个新颖的框架:可解释人工智能评估(EvaluateXAI),以及细粒度的评估指标,用于自动评估基于规则的 XAI 技术在为软件分析任务中的 ML 模型生成可靠、一致的解释时的有效性。在对五个数据集上训练的七个最先进的 ML 模型和六个评价指标进行深入实验后,我们发现没有一个评价指标达到 100%,这表明 XAI 技术生成的解释不可靠。此外,PyExplainer 和 LIME 未能分别为 86.11% 和 77.78% 的实验组合提供一致的解释。因此,我们的实验结果强调了进一步研究 XAI 的必要性,以便为软件分析任务中的 ML 模型提供可靠、一致的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EvaluateXAI: A framework to evaluate the reliability and consistency of rule-based XAI techniques for software analytics tasks

The advancement of machine learning (ML) models has led to the development of ML-based approaches to improve numerous software engineering tasks in software maintenance and evolution. Nevertheless, research indicates that despite their potential successes, ML models may not be employed in real-world scenarios because they often remain a black box to practitioners, lacking explainability in their reasoning. Recently, various rule-based model-agnostic Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, such as PyExplainer and LIME, have been employed to explain the predictions of ML models in software analytics tasks. In this paper, we assess the ability of these techniques, particularly the state-of-the-art PyExplainer and LIME, to generate reliable and consistent explanations for ML models across various software analytics tasks, including Just-in-Time (JIT) defect prediction, clone detection, and the classification of useful code review comments. Our manual investigations find inconsistencies and anomalies in the explanations generated by these techniques. Therefore, we design a novel framework: Evaluation of Explainable AI (EvaluateXAI), along with granular-level evaluation metrics, to automatically assess the effectiveness of rule-based XAI techniques in generating reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks. After conducting in-depth experiments involving seven state-of-the-art ML models trained on five datasets and six evaluation metrics, we find that none of the evaluation metrics reached 100%, indicating the unreliability of the explanations generated by XAI techniques. Additionally, PyExplainer and LIME failed to provide consistent explanations for 86.11% and 77.78% of the experimental combinations, respectively. Therefore, our experimental findings emphasize the necessity for further research in XAI to produce reliable and consistent explanations for ML models in software analytics tasks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Systems and Software
Journal of Systems and Software 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
5.70%
发文量
193
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Systems and Software publishes papers covering all aspects of software engineering and related hardware-software-systems issues. All articles should include a validation of the idea presented, e.g. through case studies, experiments, or systematic comparisons with other approaches already in practice. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: •Methods and tools for, and empirical studies on, software requirements, design, architecture, verification and validation, maintenance and evolution •Agile, model-driven, service-oriented, open source and global software development •Approaches for mobile, multiprocessing, real-time, distributed, cloud-based, dependable and virtualized systems •Human factors and management concerns of software development •Data management and big data issues of software systems •Metrics and evaluation, data mining of software development resources •Business and economic aspects of software development processes The journal welcomes state-of-the-art surveys and reports of practical experience for all of these topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信