9,066 research outputs found
Towards Accountable AI: Hybrid Human-Machine Analyses for Characterizing System Failure
As machine learning systems move from computer-science laboratories into the
open world, their accountability becomes a high priority problem.
Accountability requires deep understanding of system behavior and its failures.
Current evaluation methods such as single-score error metrics and confusion
matrices provide aggregate views of system performance that hide important
shortcomings. Understanding details about failures is important for identifying
pathways for refinement, communicating the reliability of systems in different
settings, and for specifying appropriate human oversight and engagement.
Characterization of failures and shortcomings is particularly complex for
systems composed of multiple machine learned components. For such systems,
existing evaluation methods have limited expressiveness in describing and
explaining the relationship among input content, the internal states of system
components, and final output quality. We present Pandora, a set of hybrid
human-machine methods and tools for describing and explaining system failures.
Pandora leverages both human and system-generated observations to summarize
conditions of system malfunction with respect to the input content and system
architecture. We share results of a case study with a machine learning pipeline
for image captioning that show how detailed performance views can be beneficial
for analysis and debugging
From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods:A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI
The rising popularity of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand high-performing black boxes raised the question of how to evaluate explanations of machine learning (ML) models. While interpretability and explainability are often presented as a subjectively validated binary property, we consider it a multi-faceted concept. We identify 12 conceptual properties, such as Compactness and Correctness, that should be evaluated for comprehensively assessing the quality of an explanation. Our so-called Co-12 properties serve as categorization scheme for systematically reviewing the evaluation practices of more than 300 papers published in the past 7 years at major AI and ML conferences that introduce an XAI method. We find that one in three papers evaluate exclusively with anecdotal evidence, and one in five papers evaluate with users. This survey also contributes to the call for objective, quantifiable evaluation methods by presenting an extensive overview of quantitative XAI evaluation methods. Our systematic collection of evaluation methods provides researchers and practitioners with concrete tools to thoroughly validate, benchmark, and compare new and existing XAI methods. The Co-12 categorization scheme and our identified evaluation methods open up opportunities to include quantitative metrics as optimization criteria during model training to optimize for accuracy and interpretability simultaneously.</p
- …