Evaluation of Interpretability Methods and Perturbation Artifacts in
  Deep Neural Networks
  The challenge of interpreting predictions from deep neural networks has
prompted the development of numerous interpretability methods. Many of
interpretability methods attempt to quantify the importance of input features
with respect to the class probabilities, and are called importance estimators
or saliency maps. A popular approach to evaluate such interpretability methods
is to perturb input features deemed important for predictions and observe the
decrease in accuracy. However, perturbation-based evaluation methods may
confound the sources of accuracy degradation. We conduct computational
experiments that allow to empirically estimate the $\textit{fidelity}$ of
interpretability methods and the contribution of perturbation artifacts. All
considered importance estimators clearly outperform a random baseline, which
contradicts the findings of ROAR [arXiv:1806.10758]. We further compare our
results to the crop-and-resize evaluation framework [arXiv:1705.07857], which
are largely in agreement. Our study suggests that we can estimate the impact of
artifacts and thus empirically evaluate interpretability methods without
retraining.
