Why model why? Assessing the strengths and limitations of LIME
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00093v1
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:08:07 GMT
- Title: Why model why? Assessing the strengths and limitations of LIME
- Authors: J\"urgen Dieber, Sabrina Kirrane
- Abstract summary: This paper examines the effectiveness of the Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) xAI framework.
LIME is one of the most popular model agnostic frameworks found in the literature.
We show how LIME can be used to supplement conventional performance assessment methods.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: When it comes to complex machine learning models, commonly referred to as
black boxes, understanding the underlying decision making process is crucial
for domains such as healthcare and financial services, and also when it is used
in connection with safety critical systems such as autonomous vehicles. As such
interest in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) tools and techniques has
increased in recent years. However, the effectiveness of existing xAI
frameworks, especially concerning algorithms that work with data as opposed to
images, is still an open research question. In order to address this gap, in
this paper we examine the effectiveness of the Local Interpretable
Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) xAI framework, one of the most popular model
agnostic frameworks found in the literature, with a specific focus on its
performance in terms of making tabular models more interpretable. In
particular, we apply several state of the art machine learning algorithms on a
tabular dataset, and demonstrate how LIME can be used to supplement
conventional performance assessment methods. In addition, we evaluate the
understandability of the output produced by LIME both via a usability study,
involving participants who are not familiar with LIME, and its overall
usability via an assessment framework, which is derived from the International
Organisation for Standardisation 9241-11:1998 standard.
Related papers
- SCENE: Evaluating Explainable AI Techniques Using Soft Counterfactuals [0.0]
This paper introduces SCENE (Soft Counterfactual Evaluation for Natural language Explainability), a novel evaluation method.
By focusing on token-based substitutions, SCENE creates contextually appropriate and semantically meaningful Soft Counterfactuals.
SCENE provides valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of various XAI techniques.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-08T16:36:24Z) - EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods [1.6383837447674294]
This paper brings together various benchmark datasets and novel performance metrics in an initial benchmarking platform.
Our datasets incorporate ground truth explanations for class-conditional features.
This platform assesses the performance of post-hoc XAI methods in the quality of the explanations they produce.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-20T14:16:06Z) - LLM Inference Unveiled: Survey and Roofline Model Insights [62.92811060490876]
Large Language Model (LLM) inference is rapidly evolving, presenting a unique blend of opportunities and challenges.
Our survey stands out from traditional literature reviews by not only summarizing the current state of research but also by introducing a framework based on roofline model.
This framework identifies the bottlenecks when deploying LLMs on hardware devices and provides a clear understanding of practical problems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-26T07:33:05Z) - Exploring the Power of Topic Modeling Techniques in Analyzing Customer
Reviews: A Comparative Analysis [0.0]
Machine learning and natural language processing algorithms have been deployed to analyze the vast amount of textual data available online.
In this study, we examine and compare five frequently used topic modeling methods specifically applied to customer reviews.
Our findings reveal that BERTopic consistently yield more meaningful extracted topics and achieve favorable results.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-19T08:18:04Z) - GLUECons: A Generic Benchmark for Learning Under Constraints [102.78051169725455]
In this work, we create a benchmark that is a collection of nine tasks in the domains of natural language processing and computer vision.
We model external knowledge as constraints, specify the sources of the constraints for each task, and implement various models that use these constraints.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-16T16:45:36Z) - Connecting Algorithmic Research and Usage Contexts: A Perspective of
Contextualized Evaluation for Explainable AI [65.44737844681256]
A lack of consensus on how to evaluate explainable AI (XAI) hinders the advancement of the field.
We argue that one way to close the gap is to develop evaluation methods that account for different user requirements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-22T05:17:33Z) - Beyond Explaining: Opportunities and Challenges of XAI-Based Model
Improvement [75.00655434905417]
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is an emerging research field bringing transparency to highly complex machine learning (ML) models.
This paper offers a comprehensive overview over techniques that apply XAI practically for improving various properties of ML models.
We show empirically through experiments on toy and realistic settings how explanations can help improve properties such as model generalization ability or reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-15T15:44:28Z) - Logic Constraints to Feature Importances [17.234442722611803]
"Black box" nature of AI models is often a limit for a reliable application in high-stakes fields like diagnostic techniques, autonomous guide, etc.
Recent works have shown that an adequate level of interpretability could enforce the more general concept of model trustworthiness.
The basic idea of this paper is to exploit the human prior knowledge of the features' importance for a specific task, in order to coherently aid the phase of the model's fitting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-13T09:28:38Z) - Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome.
Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations.
We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z) - A Comparative Approach to Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods in
Application to High-Dimensional Electronic Health Records: Examining the
Usability of XAI [0.0]
XAI aims to produce a demonstrative factor of trust, which for human subjects is achieved through communicative means.
The ideology behind trusting a machine to tend towards the livelihood of a human poses an ethical conundrum.
XAI methods produce visualization of the feature contribution towards a given models output on both a local and global level.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-08T18:15:52Z) - Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap.
We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert.
Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.