Measuring algorithmic interpretability: A human-learning-based framework and the corresponding cognitive complexity score

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10207v1
• Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 14:31:06 GMT
• Title: Measuring algorithmic interpretability: A human-learning-based framework and the corresponding cognitive complexity score
• Authors: John P. Lalor, Hong Guo
• Abstract summary: Algorithmic interpretability is necessary to build trust, ensure fairness, and track accountability. There is no existing formal measurement method for algorithmic interpretability. We build upon programming language theory and cognitive load theory to develop a framework for measuring algorithmic interpretability.
• Score: 4.707290877865484
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic interpretability is necessary to build trust, ensure fairness, and track accountability. However, there is no existing formal measurement method for algorithmic interpretability. In this work, we build upon programming language theory and cognitive load theory to develop a framework for measuring algorithmic interpretability. The proposed measurement framework reflects the process of a human learning an algorithm. We show that the measurement framework and the resulting cognitive complexity score have the following desirable properties - universality, computability, uniqueness, and monotonicity. We illustrate the measurement framework through a toy example, describe the framework and its conceptual underpinnings, and demonstrate the benefits of the framework, in particular for managers considering tradeoffs when selecting algorithms.

Related papers

• Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations [0.6138671548064356]
  We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T21:49:28Z)
• Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Review [28.427951836334188]
  This review explores mechanistic interpretability. Mechanistic interpretability could help prevent catastrophic outcomes as AI systems become more powerful and inscrutable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T11:01:51Z)
• Mathematical Algorithm Design for Deep Learning under Societal and Judicial Constraints: The Algorithmic Transparency Requirement [65.26723285209853]
  We derive a framework to analyze whether a transparent implementation in a computing model is feasible. Based on previous results, we find that Blum-Shub-Smale Machines have the potential to establish trustworthy solvers for inverse problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:38Z)
• Measuring, Interpreting, and Improving Fairness of Algorithms using Causal Inference and Randomized Experiments [8.62694928567939]
  We present an algorithm-agnostic framework (MIIF) to Measure, Interpret, and Improve the Fairness of an algorithmic decision. We measure the algorithm bias using randomized experiments, which enables the simultaneous measurement of disparate treatment, disparate impact, and economic value. We also develop an explainable machine learning model which accurately interprets and distills the beliefs of a blackbox algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T19:45:18Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Ability Diagnosis for Machine Learning Algorithms [88.93372675846123]
  We propose a task-agnostic evaluation framework Camilla for evaluating machine learning algorithms. We use cognitive diagnosis assumptions and neural networks to learn the complex interactions among algorithms, samples and the skills of each sample. In our experiments, Camilla outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the metric reliability, rank consistency and rank stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T03:15:56Z)
• Helpful, Misleading or Confusing: How Humans Perceive Fundamental Building Blocks of Artificial Intelligence Explanations [11.667611038005552]
  We take a step back from sophisticated predictive algorithms and look into explainability of simple decision-making models. We aim to assess how people perceive comprehensibility of their different representations. This allows us to capture how diverse stakeholders judge intelligibility of fundamental concepts that more elaborate artificial intelligence explanations are built from.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T03:15:35Z)
• Human-Algorithm Collaboration: Achieving Complementarity and Avoiding Unfairness [92.26039686430204]
  We show that even in carefully-designed systems, complementary performance can be elusive. First, we provide a theoretical framework for modeling simple human-algorithm systems. Next, we use this model to prove conditions where complementarity is impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-17T18:44:41Z)
• Active Inference in Robotics and Artificial Agents: Survey and Challenges [51.29077770446286]
  We review the state-of-the-art theory and implementations of active inference for state-estimation, control, planning and learning. We showcase relevant experiments that illustrate its potential in terms of adaptation, generalization and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-03T12:10:26Z)
• Online Deterministic Annealing for Classification and Clustering [0.0]
  We introduce an online prototype-based learning algorithm for clustering and classification. We show that the proposed algorithm constitutes a competitive-learning neural network, the learning rule of which is formulated as an online approximation algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-11T04:04:21Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)
• Concept Learners for Few-Shot Learning [76.08585517480807]
  We propose COMET, a meta-learning method that improves generalization ability by learning to learn along human-interpretable concept dimensions. We evaluate our model on few-shot tasks from diverse domains, including fine-grained image classification, document categorization and cell type annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T22:04:17Z)

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.