On Generating Monolithic and Model Reconciling Explanations in Probabilistic Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19229v1
• Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 16:07:31 GMT
• Title: On Generating Monolithic and Model Reconciling Explanations in Probabilistic Scenarios
• Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh, Alessandro Previti, Tran Cao Son,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models.
• Score: 46.752418052725126
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.

Related papers

• Fast Explainability via Feasible Concept Sets Generator [7.011763596804071]
  We bridge the gap between the universality of model-agnostic approaches and the efficiency of model-specific approaches. We first define explanations through a set of human-comprehensible concepts. Second, we show that a minimal feasible set generator can be learned as a companion explainer to the prediction model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T00:01:40Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off Between Model Performance and Explanation Plausibility of Text Classifiers Using Human Rationales [3.242050660144211]
  Saliency post-hoc explainability methods are important tools for understanding increasingly complex NLP models. We present a methodology for incorporating rationales, which are text annotations explaining human decisions, into text classification models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T22:39:33Z)
• LaPLACE: Probabilistic Local Model-Agnostic Causal Explanations [1.0370398945228227]
  We introduce LaPLACE-explainer, designed to provide probabilistic cause-and-effect explanations for machine learning models. The LaPLACE-Explainer component leverages the concept of a Markov blanket to establish statistical boundaries between relevant and non-relevant features. Our approach offers causal explanations and outperforms LIME and SHAP in terms of local accuracy and consistency of explained features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T04:09:59Z)
• 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)
• Counterfactuals of Counterfactuals: a back-translation-inspired approach to analyse counterfactual editors [3.4253416336476246]
  We focus on the analysis of counterfactual, contrastive explanations. We propose a new back translation-inspired evaluation methodology. We show that by iteratively feeding the counterfactual to the explainer we can obtain valuable insights into the behaviour of both the predictor and the explainer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T16:04:28Z)
• 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)
• Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models [77.34726150561087]
  We define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. This paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T05:59:50Z)
• 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)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)

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.