1,598,887 research outputs found
Why Attention is Not Explanation: Surgical Intervention and Causal Reasoning about Neural Models
As the demand for explainable deep learning grows in the evaluation of language technologies, the value of a principled grounding for those explanations grows as well. Here we study the state-of-the-art in explanation for neural models for natural-language processing (NLP) tasks from the viewpoint of philosophy of science. We focus on recent evaluation work that finds brittleness in explanations obtained through attention mechanisms.We harness philosophical accounts of explanation to suggest broader conclusions from these studies. From this analysis, we assert the impossibility of causal explanations from attention layers over text data. We then introduce NLP researchers to contemporary philosophy of science theories that allow robust yet non-causal reasoning in explanation, giving computer scientists a vocabulary for future researc
Cultural artefacts and neglect of the materials from which they are made
This paper discusses an explanation, offered by Tim Ingold, for why social and cultural anthropologists have so far paid little attention to the materials from which artefacts are composed. The explanation is that these anthropologists accept a certain argument. According to the argument, what an anthropologist should focus on when examining an artefact is the quality that makes it part of a culture, and this is not the materials from which the artefact is composed. I show that Ingold has not made a compelling case against this argument, but also that it is not sound
Some Concerns Regarding Explanatory Pluralism: The Explanatory Role of Optimality Models
Optimality models are widely used in different parts of biology. Two important questions that have been asked about such models are: are they explanatory and, if so, what type of explanations do they offer? My concern in this paper is with the approach of Rice (2012, 2015) and Irvine (2015), who claim that these models provide non-causal explanations. I argue that there are serious problems with this approach and with the accounts of explanation it is intended to justify. The idea behind this undertaking is to draw attention to an important issue associated with the recent pluralist stance on explanation: the rampant proliferation of theories of explanation. This proliferation supports a pluralist perspective on explanation, and pluralism encourages such a proliferation. But, if we are not careful about how we arrive at and how we justify new accounts of explanation â i.e., if we do not try to avoid the sort of problems discussed in this paper â we may end up trivializing the concept of explanation
Eight Other Questions about Explanation
The tremendous philosophical focus on how to characterize explanatory metaphysical dependence has eclipsed a number of other unresolved issued about scientific explanation. The purpose of this paper is taxonomical. I will outline a number of other questions about the nature of explanation and its role in scienceâeight, to be preciseâand argue that each is independent. All of these topics have received some philosophical attention, but none nearly so much as it deserves. Furthermore, existing views on these topics have been obscured by not distinguishing among these independent questions and, especially, by not separating them from the question of what metaphysical dependence relation is explanatory. Philosophical analysis of scientific explanation would be much improved by attending more carefully to these, and probably still other, elements of an account of explanation
Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidence
Deep models that are both effective and explainable are desirable in many
settings; prior explainable models have been unimodal, offering either
image-based visualization of attention weights or text-based generation of
post-hoc justifications. We propose a multimodal approach to explanation, and
argue that the two modalities provide complementary explanatory strengths. We
collect two new datasets to define and evaluate this task, and propose a novel
model which can provide joint textual rationale generation and attention
visualization. Our datasets define visual and textual justifications of a
classification decision for activity recognition tasks (ACT-X) and for visual
question answering tasks (VQA-X). We quantitatively show that training with the
textual explanations not only yields better textual justification models, but
also better localizes the evidence that supports the decision. We also
qualitatively show cases where visual explanation is more insightful than
textual explanation, and vice versa, supporting our thesis that multimodal
explanation models offer significant benefits over unimodal approaches.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1612.0475
I know you are beautiful even without looking at you: discrimination of facial beauty in peripheral vision
Prior research suggests that facial attractiveness may capture attention at parafovea. However, little is known about how well facial beauty can be detected at parafoveal and peripheral vision. Participants in this study judged relative attractiveness of a face pair presented simultaneously at several eccentricities from the central fixation. The results show that beauty is not only detectable at parafovea but also at periphery. The discrimination performance at parafovea was indistinguishable from the performance around the fovea. Moreover, performance was well above chance even at the periphery. The results show that the visual system is able to use the low spatial frequency information to appraise attractiveness. These findings not only provide an explanation for why a beautiful face could capture attention when central vision is already engaged elsewhere, but also reveal the potential means by which a crowd of faces is quickly scanned for attractiveness
A Commitment-Theoretic Account of Moore's Paradox
Mooreâs paradox, the infamous felt bizarreness of sincerely uttering something of the form âI believe grass is green, but it ainâtââhas attracted a lot of attention since its original discovery (Moore 1942). It is often taken to be a paradox of beliefâin the sense that the locus of the inconsistency is the beliefs of someone who so sincerely utters. This claim has been labeled as the priority thesis: If you have an explanation of why a putative content could not be coherently believed, you thereby have an explanation of why it cannot be coherently asserted. (Shoemaker 1995). The priority thesis, however, is insufficient to give a general explanation of Moore-paradoxical phenomena and, moreover, itâs false. I demonstrate this, then show how to give a commitment-theoretic account of Moore Paradoxicality, drawing on work by Bach and Harnish. The resulting account has the virtue of explaining not only cases of pragmatic incoherence involving assertions, but also cases of cognate incoherence arising for other speech acts, such as promising, guaranteeing, ordering, and the like
- âŚ