Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userChallenging common interpretability assumptions in feature attribution explanations
80
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Jonathan Dinu
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Jonathan Dinu n Unaffiliated
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
As machine learning and algorithmic decision making systems are increasingly being leveraged in high-stakes human-in-the-loop settings, there is a pressing need to understand the rationale of their predictions. Researchers have responded to this need with explainable AI (XAI), but often proclaim interpretability axiomatically without evaluation. When these systems are evaluated, they are often tested through offline simulations with proxy metrics of interpretability (such as model complexity). We empirically evaluate the veracity of three common interpretability assumptions through a large scale human-subjects experiment with a simple placebo explanation control. We find that feature attribution explanations provide marginal utility in our task for a human decision maker and in certain cases result in worse decisions due to cognitive and contextual confounders. This result challenges the assumed universal benefit of applying these methods and we hope this work will underscore the importance of human evaluation in XAI research. Supplemental materials -- including anonymized data from the experiment, code to replicate the study, an interactive demo of the experiment, and the models used in the analysis -- can be found at: https://doi.pizza/challenging-xai.
rate research
Read More
Feature attributions and counterfactual explanations are popular approaches to explain a ML model. The former assigns an importance score to each input feature, while the latter provides input examples with minimal changes to alter the models predictions. To unify these approaches, we provide an interpretation based on the actual causality framework and present two key results in terms of their use. First, we present a method to generate feature attribution explanations from a set of counterfactual examples. These feature attributions convey how important a feature is to changing the classification outcome of a model, especially on whether a subset of features is necessary and/or sufficient for that change, which attribution-based methods are unable to provide. Second, we show how counterfactual examples can be used to evaluate the goodness of an attribution-based explanation in terms of its necessity and sufficiency. As a result, we highlight the complementarity of these two approaches. Our evaluation on three benchmark datasets - Adult-Income, LendingClub, and German-Credit - confirms the complementarity. Feature attribution methods like LIME and SHAP and counterfactual explanation methods like Wachter et al. and DiCE often do not agree on feature importance rankings. In addition, by restricting the features that can be modified for generating counterfactual examples, we find that the top-k features from LIME or SHAP are often neither necessary nor sufficient explanations of a models prediction. Finally, we present a case study of different explanation methods on a real-world hospital triage problem
It is widely recognized that the predictions of deep neural networks are difficult to parse relative to simpler approaches. However, the development of methods to investigate the mode of operation of such models has advanced rapidly in the past few years. Recent work introduced an intuitive framework which utilizes generative models to improve on the meaningfulness of such explanations. In this work, we display the flexibility of this method to interpret diverse and challenging modalities: music and physical simulations of urban environments.
The interpretation of deep learning models is a challenge due to their size, complexity, and often opaque internal state. In addition, many systems, such as image classifiers, operate on low-level features rather than high-level concepts. To address these challenges, we introduce Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs), which provide an interpretation of a neural nets internal state in terms of human-friendly concepts. The key idea is to view the high-dimensional internal state of a neural net as an aid, not an obstacle. We show how to use CAVs as part of a technique, Testing with CAVs (TCAV), that uses directional derivatives to quantify the degree to which a user-defined concept is important to a classification result--for example, how sensitive a prediction of zebra is to the presence of stripes. Using the domain of image classification as a testing ground, we describe how CAVs may be used to explore hypotheses and generate insights for a standard image classification network as well as a medical application.
The ability to interpret machine learning models has become increasingly important now that machine learning is used to inform consequential decisions. We propose an approach called model extraction for interpreting complex, blackbox models. Our approach approximates the complex model using a much more interpretable model; as long as the approximation quality is good, then statistical properties of the complex model are reflected in the interpretable model. We show how model extraction can be used to understand and debug random forests and neural nets trained on several datasets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository, as well as control policies learned for several classical reinforcement learning problems.
Interpretability is an important area of research for safe deployment of machine learning systems. One particular type of interpretability method attributes model decisions to input features. Despite active development, quantitative evaluation of feature attribution methods remains difficult due to the lack of ground truth: we do not know which input features are in fact important to a model. In this work, we propose a framework for Benchmarking Attribution Methods (BAM) with a priori knowledge of relative feature importance. BAM includes 1) a carefully crafted dataset and models trained with known relative feature importance and 2) three complementary metrics to quantitatively evaluate attribution methods by comparing feature attributions between pairs of models and pairs of inputs. Our evaluation on several widely-used attribution methods suggests that certain methods are more likely to produce false positive explanations---features that are incorrectly attributed as more important to model prediction. We open source our dataset, models, and metrics.
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
