Generating Contrastive Explanations for Inductive Logic Programming
Based on a Near Miss Approach
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.08064v1
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 11:42:05 GMT
- Title: Generating Contrastive Explanations for Inductive Logic Programming
Based on a Near Miss Approach
- Authors: Johannes Rabold, Michael Siebers, Ute Schmid
- Abstract summary: We introduce an explanation generation algorithm for relational concepts learned with Inductive Logic Programming (textscGeNME)
A modified rule which covers the near miss but not the original instance is given as an explanation.
We also present a psychological experiment comparing human preferences of rule-based, example-based, and near miss explanations in the family and the arches domains.
- Score: 0.7734726150561086
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: In recent research, human-understandable explanations of machine learning
models have received a lot of attention. Often explanations are given in form
of model simplifications or visualizations. However, as shown in cognitive
science as well as in early AI research, concept understanding can also be
improved by the alignment of a given instance for a concept with a similar
counterexample. Contrasting a given instance with a structurally similar
example which does not belong to the concept highlights what characteristics
are necessary for concept membership. Such near misses have been proposed by
Winston (1970) as efficient guidance for learning in relational domains. We
introduce an explanation generation algorithm for relational concepts learned
with Inductive Logic Programming (\textsc{GeNME}). The algorithm identifies
near miss examples from a given set of instances and ranks these examples by
their degree of closeness to a specific positive instance. A modified rule
which covers the near miss but not the original instance is given as an
explanation. We illustrate \textsc{GeNME} with the well known family domain
consisting of kinship relations, the visual relational Winston arches domain
and a real-world domain dealing with file management. We also present a
psychological experiment comparing human preferences of rule-based,
example-based, and near miss explanations in the family and the arches domains.
Related papers
- Natural Example-Based Explainability: a Survey [0.0]
This paper provides an overview of the state-of-the-art in natural example-based XAI.
It will explore the following family of methods: similar examples, counterfactual and semi-factual, influential instances, prototypes, and concepts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-05T09:46:20Z) - Learning Rhetorical Structure Theory-based descriptions of observed
behaviour [0.5249805590164901]
This paper proposes a new set of concepts, axiom schemata and algorithms that allow the agent to learn new descriptions of an observed behaviour.
The relations used by agents to represent the descriptions they learn were inspired on the Theory of Rhetorical Structure (RST)
The paper shows results of the presented proposals in a demonstration scenario, using implemented software.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-24T13:47:20Z) - 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) - Quantifying and Understanding Adversarial Examples in Discrete Input
Spaces [70.18815080530801]
We formalize a notion of synonymous adversarial examples that applies in any discrete setting and describe a simple domain-agnostic algorithm to construct such examples.
Our work is a step towards a domain-agnostic treatment of discrete adversarial examples analogous to that of continuous inputs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-12-12T16:44:09Z) - On the Connections between Counterfactual Explanations and Adversarial
Examples [14.494463243702908]
We make one of the first attempts at formalizing the connections between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples.
Our analysis demonstrates that several popular counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods are equivalent.
We empirically validate our theoretical findings using extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-18T08:22:24Z) - Formalising Concepts as Grounded Abstractions [68.24080871981869]
This report shows how representation learning can be used to induce concepts from raw data.
The main technical goal of this report is to show how techniques from representation learning can be married with a lattice-theoretic formulation of conceptual spaces.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-13T15:22:01Z) - Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid
students? [103.05037537415811]
We formalize the value of explanations using a student-teacher paradigm that measures the extent to which explanations improve student models in learning.
Unlike many prior proposals to evaluate explanations, our approach cannot be easily gamed, enabling principled, scalable, and automatic evaluation of attributions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-12-01T23:40:21Z) - Towards Interpretable Natural Language Understanding with Explanations
as Latent Variables [146.83882632854485]
We develop a framework for interpretable natural language understanding that requires only a small set of human annotated explanations for training.
Our framework treats natural language explanations as latent variables that model the underlying reasoning process of a neural model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-24T02:05:56Z) - 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)
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.