A Comparative Approach to Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods in Application to High-Dimensional Electronic Health Records: Examining the Usability of XAI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04951v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:15:52 GMT
• Title: A Comparative Approach to Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods in Application to High-Dimensional Electronic Health Records: Examining the Usability of XAI
• Authors: Jamie Andrew Duell
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a rising field in AI. It aims to produce a demonstrative factor of trust, which for human subjects is achieved through communicative means, which Machine Learning (ML) algorithms cannot solely produce, illustrating the necessity of an extra layer producing support to the model output. When approaching the medical field, we can see challenges arise when dealing with the involvement of human-subjects, the ideology behind trusting a machine to tend towards the livelihood of a human poses an ethical conundrum - leaving trust as the basis of the human-expert in acceptance to the machines decision. The aim of this paper is to apply XAI methods to demonstrate the usability of explainable architectures as a tertiary layer for the medical domain supporting ML predictions and human-expert opinion, XAI methods produce visualization of the feature contribution towards a given models output on both a local and global level. The work in this paper uses XAI to determine feature importance towards high-dimensional data-driven questions to inform domain-experts of identifiable trends with a comparison of model-agnostic methods in application to ML algorithms. The performance metrics for a glass-box method is also provided as a comparison against black-box capability for tabular data. Future work will aim to produce a user-study using metrics to evaluate human-expert usability and opinion of the given models.

Related papers

• From Explainable to Interpretable Deep Learning for Natural Language Processing in Healthcare: How Far from Reality? [8.423877102146433]
  "eXplainable and Interpretable Artificial Intelligence" (XIAI) is introduced to distinguish XAI from IAI. Our analysis shows that attention mechanisms are the most prevalent emerging IAI technique. The major challenges identified are that most XIAI does not explore "global" modelling processes, the lack of best practices, and the lack of systematic evaluation and benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T15:53:33Z)
• A Brief Review of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare [7.844015105790313]
  XAI refers to the techniques and methods for building AI applications. Model explainability and interpretability are vital successful deployment of AI models in healthcare practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T05:41:57Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• 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)
• DIME: Fine-grained Interpretations of Multimodal Models via Disentangled Local Explanations [119.1953397679783]
  We focus on advancing the state-of-the-art in interpreting multimodal models. Our proposed approach, DIME, enables accurate and fine-grained analysis of multimodal models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T20:52:47Z)
• A Turing Test for Transparency [0.0]
  A central goal of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is to improve the trust relationship in human-AI interaction. Recent empirical evidence shows that explanations can have the opposite effect. This effect challenges the very goal of XAI and implies that responsible usage of transparent AI methods has to consider the ability of humans to distinguish machine generated from human explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-21T20:09:40Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Why model why? Assessing the strengths and limitations of LIME [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-30T21:08:07Z)
• Leveraging Rationales to Improve Human Task Performance [15.785125079811902]
  Given a computational system's performance exceeds that of its human user, can explainable AI capabilities be leveraged to improve the performance of the human? We introduce the Rationale-Generating Algorithm, an automated technique for generating rationales for utility-based computational methods. Results show that our approach produces rationales that lead to statistically significant improvement in human task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-11T04:51:35Z)

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.