Evaluating the Interpretability of Generative Models by Interactive Reconstruction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01264v1
• Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 02:38:14 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Interpretability of Generative Models by Interactive Reconstruction
• Authors: Andrew Slavin Ross, Nina Chen, Elisa Zhao Hang, Elena L. Glassman, Finale Doshi-Velez
• Abstract summary: We introduce a task to quantify the human-interpretability of generative model representations. We find performance on this task much more reliably differentiates entangled and disentangled models than baseline approaches.
• Score: 30.441247705313575
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: For machine learning models to be most useful in numerous sociotechnical systems, many have argued that they must be human-interpretable. However, despite increasing interest in interpretability, there remains no firm consensus on how to measure it. This is especially true in representation learning, where interpretability research has focused on "disentanglement" measures only applicable to synthetic datasets and not grounded in human factors. We introduce a task to quantify the human-interpretability of generative model representations, where users interactively modify representations to reconstruct target instances. On synthetic datasets, we find performance on this task much more reliably differentiates entangled and disentangled models than baseline approaches. On a real dataset, we find it differentiates between representation learning methods widely believed but never shown to produce more or less interpretable models. In both cases, we ran small-scale think-aloud studies and large-scale experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk to confirm that our qualitative and quantitative results agreed.

Related papers

• Corpus Considerations for Annotator Modeling and Scaling [9.263562546969695]
  We show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models. Our findings shed light on the relationship between corpus statistics and annotator modeling performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T22:27:24Z)
• Scaling Laws Do Not Scale [54.72120385955072]
  Recent work has argued that as the size of a dataset increases, the performance of a model trained on that dataset will increase. We argue that this scaling law relationship depends on metrics used to measure performance that may not correspond with how different groups of people perceive the quality of models' output. Different communities may also have values in tension with each other, leading to difficult, potentially irreconcilable choices about metrics used for model evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T15:32:21Z)
• Exposing flaws of generative model evaluation metrics and their unfair treatment of diffusion models [14.330863905963442]
  We compare 17 modern metrics for evaluating the overall performance, fidelity, diversity, rarity, and memorization of generative models. We find that the state-of-the-art perceptual realism of diffusion models as judged by humans is not reflected in commonly reported metrics such as FID. Next, we investigate data memorization, and find that generative models do memorize training examples on simple, smaller datasets like CIFAR10, but not necessarily on more complex datasets like ImageNet.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T18:00:00Z)
• Analyzing Effects of Mixed Sample Data Augmentation on Model Interpretability [15.078314022161237]
  We explore the relationship between interpretability and data augmentation strategy in which models are trained. Experiments show that models trained with mixed sample data augmentation show lower interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-26T03:01:39Z)
• Evaluation of Categorical Generative Models -- Bridging the Gap Between Real and Synthetic Data [18.142397311464343]
  We introduce an appropriately scalable evaluation method for generative models. We consider increasingly large probability spaces, which correspond to increasingly difficult modeling tasks. We validate our evaluation procedure with synthetic experiments on both synthetic generative models and current state-of-the-art categorical generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T21:05:25Z)
• A comprehensive comparative evaluation and analysis of Distributional Semantic Models [61.41800660636555]
  We perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. The results show that the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous. We borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T15:18:06Z)
• Model Learning with Personalized Interpretability Estimation (ML-PIE) [2.862606936691229]
  High-stakes applications require AI-generated models to be interpretable. Current algorithms for the synthesis of potentially interpretable models rely on objectives or regularization terms. We propose an approach for the synthesis of models that are tailored to the user.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-13T09:47:48Z)
• Prototypical Representation Learning for Relation Extraction [56.501332067073065]
  This paper aims to learn predictive, interpretable, and robust relation representations from distantly-labeled data. We learn prototypes for each relation from contextual information to best explore the intrinsic semantics of relations. Results on several relation learning tasks show that our model significantly outperforms the previous state-of-the-art relational models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-22T08:11:43Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)
• Human Trajectory Forecasting in Crowds: A Deep Learning Perspective [89.4600982169]
  We present an in-depth analysis of existing deep learning-based methods for modelling social interactions. We propose two knowledge-based data-driven methods to effectively capture these social interactions. We develop a large scale interaction-centric benchmark TrajNet++, a significant yet missing component in the field of human trajectory forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-07T17:19:56Z)
• Plausible Counterfactuals: Auditing Deep Learning Classifiers with Realistic Adversarial Examples [84.8370546614042]
  Black-box nature of Deep Learning models has posed unanswered questions about what they learn from data. Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and multi-objectives are used to furnish a plausible attack to the audited model. Its utility is showcased within a human face classification task, unveiling the enormous potential of the proposed framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-25T11:08:56Z)

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.