Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userEvaluating the Correctness of Explainable AI Algorithms for Classification
77
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Siyuan Liu
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Explainable AI has attracted much research attention in recent years with feature attribution algorithms, which compute feature importance in predictions, becoming increasingly popular. However, there is little analysis of the validity of these algorithms as there is no ground truth in the existing datasets to validate their correctness. In this work, we develop a method to quantitatively evaluate the correctness of XAI algorithms by creating datasets with known explanation ground truth. To this end, we focus on the binary classification problems. String datasets are constructed using formal language derived from a grammar. A string is positive if and only if a certain property is fulfilled. Symbols serving as explanation ground truth in a positive string are part of an explanation if and only if they contributes to fulfilling the property. Two popular feature attribution explainers, Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), are used in our experiments.We show that: (1) classification accuracy is positively correlated with explanation accuracy; (2) SHAP provides more accurate explanations than LIME; (3) explanation accuracy is negatively correlated with dataset complexity.
rate research
Read More
The overarching goal of Explainable AI is to develop systems that not only exhibit intelligent behaviours, but also are able to explain their rationale and reveal insights. In explainable machine learning, methods that produce a high level of prediction accuracy as well as transparent explanations are valuable. In this work, we present an explainable classification method. Our method works by first constructing a symbolic Knowledge Base from the training data, and then performing probabilistic inferences on such Knowledge Base with linear programming. Our approach achieves a level of learning performance comparable to that of traditional classifiers such as random forests, support vector machines and neural networks. It identifies decisive features that are responsible for a classification as explanations and produces results similar to the ones found by SHAP, a state of the art Shapley Value based method. Our algorithms perform well on a range of synthetic and non-synthetic data sets.
Machine learning methods are growing in relevance for biometrics and personal information processing in domains such as forensics, e-health, recruitment, and e-learning. In these domains, white-box (human-readable) explanations of systems built on machine learning methods can become crucial. Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is a subfield of symbolic AI aimed to automatically learn declarative theories about the process of data. Learning from Interpretation Transition (LFIT) is an ILP technique that can learn a propositional logic theory equivalent to a given black-box system (under certain conditions). The present work takes a first step to a general methodology to incorporate accurate declarative explanations to classic machine learning by checking the viability of LFIT in a specific AI application scenario: fair recruitment based on an automatic tool generated with machine learning methods for ranking Curricula Vitae that incorporates soft biometric information (gender and ethnicity). We show the expressiveness of LFIT for this specific problem and propose a scheme that can be applicable to other domains.
Explainable artificially intelligent (XAI) systems form part of sociotechnical systems, e.g., human+AI teams tasked with making decisions. Yet, current XAI systems are rarely evaluated by measuring the performance of human+AI teams on actual decision-making tasks. We conducted two online experiments and one in-person think-aloud study to evaluate two currently common techniques for evaluating XAI systems: (1) using proxy, artificial tasks such as how well humans predict the AIs decision from the given explanations, and (2) using subjective measures of trust and preference as predictors of actual performance. The results of our experiments demonstrate that evaluations with proxy tasks did not predict the results of the evaluations with the actual decision-making tasks. Further, the subjective measures on evaluations with actual decision-making tasks did not predict the objective performance on those same tasks. Our results suggest that by employing misleading evaluation methods, our field may be inadvertently slowing its progress toward developing human+AI teams that can reliably perform better than humans or AIs alone.
AI systems have seen significant adoption in various domains. At the same time, further adoption in some domains is hindered by inability to fully trust an AI system that it will not harm a human. Besides the concerns for fairness, privacy, transparency, and explainability are key to developing trusts in AI systems. As stated in describing trustworthy AI Trust comes through understanding. How AI-led decisions are made and what determining factors were included are crucial to understand. The subarea of explaining AI systems has come to be known as XAI. Multiple aspects of an AI system can be explained; these include biases that the data might have, lack of data points in a particular region of the example space, fairness of gathering the data, feature importances, etc. However, besides these, it is critical to have human-centered explanations that are directly related to decision-making similar to how a domain expert makes decisions based on domain knowledge, that also include well-established, peer-validated explicit guidelines. To understand and validate an AI systems outcomes (such as classification, recommendations, predictions), that lead to developing trust in the AI system, it is necessary to involve explicit domain knowledge that humans understand and use.
Knowledge graph embeddings are now a widely adopted approach to knowledge representation in which entities and relationships are embedded in vector spaces. In this chapter, we introduce the reader to the concept of knowledge graph embeddings by explaining what they are, how they can be generated and how they can be evaluated. We summarize the state-of-the-art in this field by describing the approaches that have been introduced to represent knowledge in the vector space. In relation to knowledge representation, we consider the problem of explainability, and discuss models and methods for explaining predictions obtained via knowledge graph embeddings.
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
