Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10932v1
• Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 21:16:49 GMT
• Title: Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers
• Authors: Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Francesca Toni
• Abstract summary: We focus on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification. We propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of) computational argumentation to generate explanations.
• Score: 15.81939090849456
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent works in Explainable AI mostly address the transparency issue of black-box models or create explanations for any kind of models (i.e., they are model-agnostic), while leaving explanations of interpretable models largely underexplored. In this paper, we fill this gap by focusing on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification. We do so because, albeit interpretable, PLR is challenging when it comes to explanations. In particular, we found that a standard way to extract explanations from this model does not consider relations among the features, making the explanations hardly plausible to humans. Hence, we propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of) computational argumentation to generate explanations (for outputs computed by PLR) which unearth model agreements and disagreements among the features. Specifically, we use computational argumentation as follows: we see features (patterns) in PLR as arguments in a form of quantified bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) and extract attacks and supports between arguments based on specificity of the arguments; we understand logistic regression as a gradual semantics for these QBAFs, used to determine the arguments' dialectic strength; and we study standard properties of gradual semantics for QBAFs in the context of our argumentative re-interpretation of PLR, sanctioning its suitability for explanatory purposes. We then show how to extract intuitive explanations (for outputs computed by PLR) from the constructed QBAFs. Finally, we conduct an empirical evaluation and two experiments in the context of human-AI collaboration to demonstrate the advantages of our resulting AXPLR method.

Related papers

• When factorization meets argumentation: towards argumentative explanations [0.0]
  We propose a novel model that combines factorization-based methods with argumentation frameworks (AFs) Our framework seamlessly incorporates side information, such as user contexts, leading to more accurate predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T19:16:28Z)
• Explaining Text Similarity in Transformer Models [52.571158418102584]
  Recent advances in explainable AI have made it possible to mitigate limitations by leveraging improved explanations for Transformers. We use BiLRP, an extension developed for computing second-order explanations in bilinear similarity models, to investigate which feature interactions drive similarity in NLP models. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of different semantic similarity tasks and models, highlighting how novel explainable AI methods enable in-depth analyses and corpus-level insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:11:31Z)
• Towards More Faithful Natural Language Explanation Using Multi-Level Contrastive Learning in VQA [7.141288053123662]
  Natural language explanation in visual question answer (VQA-NLE) aims to explain the decision-making process of models by generating natural language sentences to increase users' trust in the black-box systems. Existing post-hoc explanations are not always aligned with human logical inference, suffering from the issues on: 1) Deductive unsatisfiability, the generated explanations do not logically lead to the answer; 2) Factual inconsistency, the model falsifies its counterfactual explanation for answers without considering the facts in images; and 3) Semantic perturbation insensitivity, the model can not recognize the semantic changes caused by small perturbations
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T05:51:55Z)
• Leveraging Structured Information for Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering and Reasoning [14.219239732584368]
  In this work, we investigate constructing and leveraging extracted semantic structures (graphs) for multi-hop question answering. Empirical results and human evaluations show that our framework: generates more faithful reasoning chains and substantially improves the QA performance on two benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T05:32:39Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate Reinforcement [15.947501347927687]
  We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models. The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds. We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T19:39:51Z)
• Local Explanation of Dialogue Response Generation [77.68077106724522]
  Local explanation of response generation (LERG) is proposed to gain insights into the reasoning process of a generation model. LERG views the sequence prediction as uncertainty estimation of a human response and then creates explanations by perturbing the input and calculating the certainty change over the human response. Our results show that our method consistently improves other widely used methods on proposed automatic- and human- evaluation metrics for this new task by 4.4-12.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-11T17:58:36Z)
• Discrete Reasoning Templates for Natural Language Understanding [79.07883990966077]
  We present an approach that reasons about complex questions by decomposing them to simpler subquestions. We derive the final answer according to instructions in a predefined reasoning template. We show that our approach is competitive with the state-of-the-art while being interpretable and requires little supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T18:56:56Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language? [86.60613602337246]
  We introduce a leakage-adjusted simulatability (LAS) metric for evaluating NL explanations. LAS measures how well explanations help an observer predict a model's output, while controlling for how explanations can directly leak the output. We frame explanation generation as a multi-agent game and optimize explanations for simulatability while penalizing label leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T16:59:07Z)

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.