The Shape of Explanations: A Topological Account of Rule-Based Explanations in Machine Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09042v1
• Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 02:58:00 GMT
• Title: The Shape of Explanations: A Topological Account of Rule-Based Explanations in Machine Learning
• Authors: Brett Mullins
• Abstract summary: We introduce a framework for rule-based explanation methods and provide a characterization of explainability. We argue that the preferred scheme depends on how much the user knows about the domain and the probability measure over the feature space.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Rule-based explanations provide simple reasons explaining the behavior of machine learning classifiers at given points in the feature space. Several recent methods (Anchors, LORE, etc.) purport to generate rule-based explanations for arbitrary or black-box classifiers. But what makes these methods work in general? We introduce a topological framework for rule-based explanation methods and provide a characterization of explainability in terms of the definability of a classifier relative to an explanation scheme. We employ this framework to consider various explanation schemes and argue that the preferred scheme depends on how much the user knows about the domain and the probability measure over the feature space.

Related papers

• Selective Explanations [14.312717332216073]
  A machine learning model is trained to predict feature attribution scores with only one inference. Despite their efficiency, amortized explainers can produce inaccurate predictions and misleading explanations. We propose selective explanations, a novel feature attribution method that detects when amortized explainers generate low-quality explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T23:08:31Z)
• Explainability for Large Language Models: A Survey [59.67574757137078]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language processing. This paper introduces a taxonomy of explainability techniques and provides a structured overview of methods for explaining Transformer-based language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T22:14:26Z)
• Learning with Explanation Constraints [91.23736536228485]
  We provide a learning theoretic framework to analyze how explanations can improve the learning of our models. We demonstrate the benefits of our approach over a large array of synthetic and real-world experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T15:06:47Z)
• Zero-Shot Classification by Logical Reasoning on Natural Language Explanations [56.42922904777717]
  We propose the framework CLORE (Classification by LOgical Reasoning on Explanations) CLORE parses explanations into logical structures and then explicitly reasons along thess structures on the input to produce a classification score. We also demonstrate that our framework can be extended to zero-shot classification on visual modality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T01:05:11Z)
• Computing Rule-Based Explanations of Machine Learning Classifiers using Knowledge Graphs [62.997667081978825]
  We use knowledge graphs as the underlying framework providing the terminology for representing explanations for the operation of a machine learning classifier. In particular, we introduce a novel method for extracting and representing black-box explanations of its operation, in the form of first-order logic rules expressed in the terminology of the knowledge graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T16:21:49Z)
• Topological Representations of Local Explanations [8.559625821116454]
  We propose a topology-based framework to extract a simplified representation from a set of local explanations. We demonstrate that our framework can not only reliably identify differences between explainability techniques but also provides stable representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-06T17:46:45Z)
• To trust or not to trust an explanation: using LEAF to evaluate local linear XAI methods [0.0]
  There is no consensus on how to quantitatively evaluate explanations in practice. explanations are typically used only to inspect black-box models, and the proactive use of explanations as a decision support is generally overlooked. Among the many approaches to XAI, a widely adopted paradigm is Local Linear Explanations - with LIME and SHAP emerging as state-of-the-art methods. We show that these methods are plagued by many defects including unstable explanations, divergence of actual implementations from the promised theoretical properties, and explanations for the wrong label. This highlights the need to have standard and unbiased evaluation procedures for
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T13:14:12Z)
• Convex optimization for actionable \& plausible counterfactual explanations [9.104557591459283]
  Transparency is an essential requirement of machine learning based decision making systems that are deployed in real world. Counterfactual explanations are a prominent instance of particular intuitive explanations of decision making systems. In this work we enhance our previous work on convex modeling for computing counterfactual explanations by a mechanism for ensuring actionability and plausibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T06:33:58Z)
• Explanation from Specification [3.04585143845864]
  We formulate an approach where the type of explanation produced is guided by a specification. Two examples are discussed: explanations for Bayesian networks using the theory of argumentation, and explanations for graph neural networks. The approach is motivated by a theory of explanation in the philosophy of science, and it is related to current questions in the philosophy of science on the role of machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-13T23:27:48Z)
• 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)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)

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.