اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدIn-Distribution Interpretability for Challenging Modalities
372
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
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.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
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.
A common approach for feature selection is to examine the variable importance scores for a machine learning model, as a way to understand which features are the most relevant for making predictions. Given the significance of feature selection, it is
crucial for the calculated importance scores to reflect reality. Falsely overestimating the importance of irrelevant features can lead to false discoveries, while underestimating importance of relevant features may lead us to discard important features, resulting in poor model performance. Additionally, black-box models like XGBoost provide state-of-the art predictive performance, but cannot be easily understood by humans, and thus we rely on variable importance scores or methods for explainability like SHAP to offer insight into their behavior. In this paper, we investigate the performance of variable importance as a feature selection method across various black-box and interpretable machine learning methods. We compare the ability of CART, Optimal Trees, XGBoost and SHAP to correctly identify the relevant subset of variables across a number of experiments. The results show that regardless of whether we use the native variable importance method or SHAP, XGBoost fails to clearly distinguish between relevant and irrelevant features. On the other hand, the interpretable methods are able to correctly and efficiently identify irrelevant features, and thus offer significantly better performance for feature selection.
To date, there has been no formal study of the statistical cost of interpretability in machine learning. As such, the discourse around potential trade-offs is often informal and misconceptions abound. In this work, we aim to initiate a formal study o
f these trade-offs. A seemingly insurmountable roadblock is the lack of any agreed upon definition of interpretability. Instead, we propose a shift in perspective. Rather than attempt to define interpretability, we propose to model the emph{act} of emph{enforcing} interpretability. As a starting point, we focus on the setting of empirical risk minimization for binary classification, and view interpretability as a constraint placed on learning. That is, we assume we are given a subset of hypothesis that are deemed to be interpretable, possibly depending on the data distribution and other aspects of the context. We then model the act of enforcing interpretability as that of performing empirical risk minimization over the set of interpretable hypotheses. This model allows us to reason about the statistical implications of enforcing interpretability, using known results in statistical learning theory. Focusing on accuracy, we perform a case analysis, explaining why one may or may not observe a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability when the restriction to interpretable classifiers does or does not come at the cost of some excess statistical risk. We close with some worked examples and some open problems, which we hope will spur further theoretical development around the tradeoffs involved in interpretability.
Machine learning models have had discernible achievements in a myriad of applications. However, most of these models are black-boxes, and it is obscure how the decisions are made by them. This makes the models unreliable and untrustworthy. To provide
insights into the decision making processes of these models, a variety of traditional interpretable models have been proposed. Moreover, to generate more human-friendly explanations, recent work on interpretability tries to answer questions related to causality such as Why does this model makes such decisions? or Was it a specific feature that caused the decision made by the model?. In this work, models that aim to answer causal questions are referred to as causal interpretable models. The existing surveys have covered concepts and methodologies of traditional interpretability. In this work, we present a comprehensive survey on causal interpretable models from the aspects of the problems and methods. In addition, this survey provides in-depth insights into the existing evaluation metrics for measuring interpretability, which can help practitioners understand for what scenarios each evaluation metric is suitable.
Decisions by Machine Learning (ML) models have become ubiquitous. Trusting these decisions requires understanding how algorithms take them. Hence interpretability methods for ML are an active focus of research. A central problem in this context is th
at both the quality of interpretability methods as well as trust in ML predictions are difficult to measure. Yet evaluations, comparisons and improvements of trust and interpretability require quantifiable measures. Here we propose a quantitative measure for the quality of interpretability methods. Based on that we derive a quantitative measure of trust in ML decisions. Building on previous work we propose to measure intuitive understanding of algorithmic decisions using the information transfer rate at which humans replicate ML model predictions. We provide empirical evidence from crowdsourcing experiments that the proposed metric robustly differentiates interpretability methods. The proposed metric also demonstrates the value of interpretability for ML assisted human decision making: in our experiments providing explanations more than doubled productivity in annotation tasks. However unbiased human judgement is critical for doctors, judges, policy makers and others. Here we derive a trust metric that identifies when human decisions are overly biased towards ML predictions. Our results complement existing qualitative work on trust and interpretability by quantifiable measures that can serve as objectives for further improving methods in this field of research.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
