Teaching the Machine to Explain Itself using Domain Knowledge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.01932v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:46:34 GMT
• Title: Teaching the Machine to Explain Itself using Domain Knowledge
• Authors: Vladimir Balayan, Pedro Saleiro, Catarina Bel\'em, Ludwig Krippahl and Pedro Bizarro
• Abstract summary: Non-technical humans-in-the-loop struggle to comprehend the rationale behind model predictions. We present JOEL, a neural network-based framework to jointly learn a decision-making task and associated explanations. We collect the domain feedback from a pool of certified experts and use it to ameliorate the model (human teaching)
• Score: 4.462334751640166
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine Learning (ML) has been increasingly used to aid humans to make better and faster decisions. However, non-technical humans-in-the-loop struggle to comprehend the rationale behind model predictions, hindering trust in algorithmic decision-making systems. Considerable research work on AI explainability attempts to win back trust in AI systems by developing explanation methods but there is still no major breakthrough. At the same time, popular explanation methods (e.g., LIME, and SHAP) produce explanations that are very hard to understand for non-data scientist persona. To address this, we present JOEL, a neural network-based framework to jointly learn a decision-making task and associated explanations that convey domain knowledge. JOEL is tailored to human-in-the-loop domain experts that lack deep technical ML knowledge, providing high-level insights about the model's predictions that very much resemble the experts' own reasoning. Moreover, we collect the domain feedback from a pool of certified experts and use it to ameliorate the model (human teaching), hence promoting seamless and better suited explanations. Lastly, we resort to semantic mappings between legacy expert systems and domain taxonomies to automatically annotate a bootstrap training set, overcoming the absence of concept-based human annotations. We validate JOEL empirically on a real-world fraud detection dataset. We show that JOEL can generalize the explanations from the bootstrap dataset. Furthermore, obtained results indicate that human teaching can further improve the explanations prediction quality by approximately $13.57\%$.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Explaining Explainability: Towards Deeper Actionable Insights into Deep Learning through Second-order Explainability [70.60433013657693]
  Second-order explainable AI (SOXAI) was recently proposed to extend explainable AI (XAI) from the instance level to the dataset level. We demonstrate for the first time, via example classification and segmentation cases, that eliminating irrelevant concepts from the training set based on actionable insights from SOXAI can enhance a model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T23:24:01Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Evaluating Human-like Explanations for Robot Actions in Reinforcement Learning Scenarios [1.671353192305391]
  We make use of human-like explanations built from the probability of success to complete the goal that an autonomous robot shows after performing an action. These explanations are intended to be understood by people who have no or very little experience with artificial intelligence methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-07T10:40:24Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)
• An Information-Theoretic Approach to Personalized Explainable Machine Learning [92.53970625312665]
  We propose a simple probabilistic model for the predictions and user knowledge. We quantify the effect of an explanation by the conditional mutual information between the explanation and prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-01T13:06:29Z)
• Self-explaining AI as an alternative to interpretable AI [0.0]
  Double descent indicates that deep neural networks operate by smoothly interpolating between data points. Neural networks trained on complex real world data are inherently hard to interpret and prone to failure if asked to extrapolate. Self-explaining AIs are capable of providing a human-understandable explanation along with confidence levels for both the decision and explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T18:50:11Z)
• Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience [76.9910678786031]
  We propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an Active Learning setting. Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-24T22:52:18Z)
• Deceptive AI Explanations: Creation and Detection [3.197020142231916]
  We investigate how AI models can be used to create and detect deceptive explanations. As an empirical evaluation, we focus on text classification and alter the explanations generated by GradCAM. We evaluate the effect of deceptive explanations on users in an experiment with 200 participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-21T16:41:22Z)

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.