Explanation from Specification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07179v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:27:48 GMT
• Title: Explanation from Specification
• Authors: Harish Naik, Gy\"orgy Tur\'an
• Abstract summary: We formulate an approach where the type of explanation produced is guided by a specification. Two examples are discussed: explanations for Bayesian networks using the theory of argumentation, and explanations for graph neural networks. The approach is motivated by a theory of explanation in the philosophy of science, and it is related to current questions in the philosophy of science on the role of machine learning.
• Score: 3.04585143845864
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable components in XAI algorithms often come from a familiar set of models, such as linear models or decision trees. We formulate an approach where the type of explanation produced is guided by a specification. Specifications are elicited from the user, possibly using interaction with the user and contributions from other areas. Areas where a specification could be obtained include forensic, medical, and scientific applications. Providing a menu of possible types of specifications in an area is an exploratory knowledge representation and reasoning task for the algorithm designer, aiming at understanding the possibilities and limitations of efficiently computable modes of explanations. Two examples are discussed: explanations for Bayesian networks using the theory of argumentation, and explanations for graph neural networks. The latter case illustrates the possibility of having a representation formalism available to the user for specifying the type of explanation requested, for example, a chemical query language for classifying molecules. The approach is motivated by a theory of explanation in the philosophy of science, and it is related to current questions in the philosophy of science on the role of machine learning.

Related papers

• A Theoretical Framework for AI Models Explainability with Application in Biomedicine [3.5742391373143474]
  We propose a novel definition of explanation that is a synthesis of what can be found in the literature. We fit explanations into the properties of faithfulness (i.e., the explanation being a true description of the model's inner workings and decision-making process) and plausibility (i.e., how much the explanation looks convincing to the user)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-29T20:05:26Z)
• Do Explanations Explain? Model Knows Best [39.86131552976105]
  It is a mystery which input features contribute to a neural network's output. We propose a framework for evaluating the explanations using the neural network model itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-04T12:39:29Z)
• Human-Centered Concept Explanations for Neural Networks [47.71169918421306]
  We introduce concept explanations including the class of Concept Activation Vectors (CAV) We then discuss approaches to automatically extract concepts, and approaches to address some of their caveats. Finally, we discuss some case studies that showcase the utility of such concept-based explanations in synthetic settings and real world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T01:27:31Z)
• Explanatory Paradigms in Neural Networks [18.32369721322249]
  We present a leap-forward expansion to the study of explainability in neural networks by considering explanations as answers to reasoning-based questions. The answers to these questions are observed correlations, observed counterfactuals, and observed contrastive explanations respectively. The term observed refers to the specific case of post-hoc explainability, when an explanatory technique explains the decision $P$ after a trained neural network has made the decision $P$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-24T00:22:11Z)
• Explanation as a process: user-centric construction of multi-level and multi-modal explanations [0.34410212782758043]
  We present a process-based approach that combines multi-level and multi-modal explanations. We use Inductive Logic Programming, an interpretable machine learning approach, to learn a comprehensible model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-07T19:26:21Z)
• CX-ToM: Counterfactual Explanations with Theory-of-Mind for Enhancing Human Trust in Image Recognition Models [84.32751938563426]
  We propose a new explainable AI (XAI) framework for explaining decisions made by a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) In contrast to the current methods in XAI that generate explanations as a single shot response, we pose explanation as an iterative communication process. Our framework generates sequence of explanations in a dialog by mediating the differences between the minds of machine and human user.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-03T09:46:20Z)
• This is not the Texture you are looking for! Introducing Novel Counterfactual Explanations for Non-Experts using Generative Adversarial Learning [59.17685450892182]
  counterfactual explanation systems try to enable a counterfactual reasoning by modifying the input image. We present a novel approach to generate such counterfactual image explanations based on adversarial image-to-image translation techniques. Our results show that our approach leads to significantly better results regarding mental models, explanation satisfaction, trust, emotions, and self-efficacy than two state-of-the art systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-22T10:08:05Z)
• A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classification [52.879658637466605]
  We develop a list of diagnostic properties for evaluating existing explainability techniques. We compare the saliency scores assigned by the explainability techniques with human annotations of salient input regions to find relations between a model's performance and the agreement of its rationales with human ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-25T12:01:53Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)
• Explanations of Black-Box Model Predictions by Contextual Importance and Utility [1.7188280334580195]
  We present the Contextual Importance (CI) and Contextual Utility (CU) concepts to extract explanations easily understandable by experts as well as novice users. This method explains the prediction results without transforming the model into an interpretable one. We show the utility of explanations in car selection example and Iris flower classification by presenting complete (i.e. the causes of an individual prediction) and contrastive explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-30T06:49:50Z)
• 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)

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.