Local explanation methods such as LIME have become popular in MIR as tools for generating post-hoc, model-agnostic explanations of a model's classification decisions. The basic idea is to identify a small set of human-understandable features of the classified example that are most influential on the classifier's prediction. These are then presented as an explanation. Evaluation of such explanations in publications often resorts to accepting what matches the expectation of a human without actually being able to verify if what the explanation shows is what really caused the model's prediction. This paper reports on targeted investigations where we try to get more insight into the actual veracity of LIME's explanations in an audio classification task. We deliberately design adversarial examples for the classifier, in a way that gives us knowledge about which parts of the input are potentially responsible for the model's (wrong) prediction. Asking LIME to explain the predictions for these adversaries permits us to study whether local explanations do indeed detect these regions of interest. We also look at whether LIME is more successful in finding perturbations that are more prominent and easily noticeable for a human. Our results suggest that LIME does not necessarily manage to identify the most relevant input features and hence it remains unclear whether explanations are useful or even misleading.

SaM can be said to do clustering/vector quantization (VQ) and at the same time to preserve the spatial ordering of the input data reflected by an ordering of the code book vectors (cluster centroids) in a one or two dimensional output space, where the latter property is closely related to multidimensional scaling (MDS) in statistics. Although the level of activity and research around the SaM algorithm is quite large (a recent overview by [Kohonen 95] contains more than 1000 citations), only little comparison among the numerous existing variants of the basic approach and also to more traditional statistical techniques of the larger frameworks of VQ and MDS is available. Additionally, thereis only little advice in the literature about how to properly use 446 A.Flexer SOM in order to get optimal results in terms of either vector quantization (VQ) or multidimensional scaling or maybe even both of them. To make the notion of SOM being a tool for "data visualization" more precise, the following question has to be answered: Should SOM be used for doing VQ, MDS, both at the same time or none of them? Two recent comprehensive studies comparing SOM either to traditional VQ or MDS techniques separately seem to indicate that SOM is not competitive when used for either VQ or MDS: [Balakrishnan et al. 94J compare SOM to K-means clustering on 108 multivariate normal clustering problems with known clustering solutions and show that SOM performs significantly worse in terms of data points misclassified

SaM can be said to do clustering/vector quantization (VQ) and at the same time to preserve the spatial ordering of the input data reflected by an ordering of the code book vectors (cluster centroids) in a one or two dimensional output space, where the latter property is closely related to multidimensional scaling (MDS) in statistics. Although the level of activity and research around the SaM algorithm is quite large (a recent overview by [Kohonen 95] contains more than 1000 citations), only little comparison among the numerous existing variants of the basic approach and also to more traditional statistical techniques of the larger frameworks of VQ and MDS is available. Additionally, there is only little advice in the literature about how to properly use 446 A. Flexer SOM in order to get optimal results in terms of either vector quantization (VQ) or multidimensional scaling or maybe even both of them. To make the notion of SOM being a tool for "data visualization" more precise, the following question has to be answered: Should SOM be used for doing VQ, MDS, both at the same time or none of them? Two recent comprehensive studies comparing SOM either to traditional VQ or MDS techniques separately seem to indicate that SOM is not competitive when used for either VQ or MDS: [Balakrishnan et al. 94J compare SOM to K-means clustering on 108 multivariate normal clustering problems with known clustering solutions and show that SOM performs significantly worse in terms of data points misclassified