Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExplanation Ontology in Action: A Clinical Use-Case
139
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Shruthi Chari
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We addressed the problem of a lack of semantic representation for user-centric explanations and different explanation types in our Explanation Ontology (https://purl.org/heals/eo). Such a representation is increasingly necessary as explainability has become an important problem in Artificial Intelligence with the emergence of complex methods and an uptake in high-precision and user-facing settings. In this submission, we provide step-by-step guidance for system designers to utilize our ontology, introduced in our resource track paper, to plan and model for explanations during the design of their Artificial Intelligence systems. We also provide a detailed example with our utilization of this guidance in a clinical setting.
rate research
Read More
Explainability has been a goal for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems since their conception, with the need for explainability growing as more complex AI models are increasingly used in critical, high-stakes settings such as healthcare. Explanations have often added to an AI system in a non-principled, post-hoc manner. With greater adoption of these systems and emphasis on user-centric explainability, there is a need for a structured representation that treats explainability as a primary consideration, mapping end user needs to specific explanation types and the systems AI capabilities. We design an explanation ontology to model both the role of explanations, accounting for the system and user attributes in the process, and the range of different literature-derived explanation types. We indicate how the ontology can support user requirements for explanations in the domain of healthcare. We evaluate our ontology with a set of competency questions geared towards a system designer who might use our ontology to decide which explanation types to include, given a combination of users needs and a systems capabilities, both in system design settings and in real-time operations. Through the use of this ontology, system designers will be able to make informed choices on which explanations AI systems can and should provide.
Human collaborators can effectively communicate with their partners to finish a common task by inferring each others mental states (e.g., goals, beliefs, and desires). Such mind-aware communication minimizes the discrepancy among collaborators mental states, and is crucial to the success in human ad-hoc teaming. We believe that robots collaborating with human users should demonstrate similar pedagogic behavior. Thus, in this paper, we propose a novel explainable AI (XAI) framework for achieving human-like communication in human-robot collaborations, where the robot builds a hierarchical mind model of the human user and generates explanations of its own mind as a form of communications based on its online Bayesian inference of the users mental state. To evaluate our framework, we conduct a user study on a real-time human-robot cooking task. Experimental results show that the generated explanations of our approach significantly improves the collaboration performance and user perception of the robot. Code and video demos are available on our project website: https://xfgao.github.io/xCookingWeb/.
Academic advances of AI models in high-precision domains, like healthcare, need to be made explainable in order to enhance real-world adoption. Our past studies and ongoing interactions indicate that medical experts can use AI systems with greater trust if there are ways to connect the model inferences about patients to explanations that are tied back to the context of use. Specifically, risk prediction is a complex problem of diagnostic and interventional importance to clinicians wherein they consult different sources to make decisions. To enable the adoption of the ever improving AI risk prediction models in practice, we have begun to explore techniques to contextualize such models along three dimensions of interest: the patients clinical state, AI predictions about their risk of complications, and algorithmic explanations supporting the predictions. We validate the importance of these dimensions by implementing a proof-of-concept (POC) in type-2 diabetes (T2DM) use case where we assess the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) - a common T2DM comorbidity. Within the POC, we include risk prediction models for CKD, post-hoc explainers of the predictions, and other natural-language modules which operationalize domain knowledge and CPGs to provide context. With primary care physicians (PCP) as our end-users, we present our initial results and clinician feedback in this paper. Our POC approach covers multiple knowledge sources and clinical scenarios, blends knowledge to explain data and predictions to PCPs, and received an enthusiastic response from our medical expert.
Understanding predictions made by Machine Learning models is critical in many applications. In this work, we investigate the performance of two methods for explaining tree-based models- Tree Interpreter (TI) and SHapley Additive exPlanations TreeExplainer (SHAP-TE). Using a case study on detecting anomalies in job runtimes of applications that utilize cloud-computing platforms, we compare these approaches using a variety of metrics, including computation time, significance of attribution value, and explanation accuracy. We find that, although the SHAP-TE offers consistency guarantees over TI, at the cost of increased computation, consistency does not necessarily improve the explanation performance in our case study.
Considering the high heterogeneity of the ontologies pub-lished on the web, ontology matching is a crucial issue whose aim is to establish links between an entity of a source ontology and one or several entities from a target ontology. Perfectible similarity measures, consid-ered as sources of information, are combined to establish these links. The theory of belief functions is a powerful mathematical tool for combining such uncertain information. In this paper, we introduce a decision pro-cess based on a distance measure to identify the best possible matching entities for a given source entity.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
