bLIMEy:Surrogate Prediction Explanations Beyond LIME

Surrogate explainers of black-box machine learning predictions are of paramount importance in the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence since they can be applied to any type of data (images, text and tabular), are model-agnostic and are post-hoc (i.e., can be retrofitted). The Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) algorithm is often mistakenly unified with a more general framework of surrogate explainers, which may lead to a belief that it is the solution to surrogate explainability. In this paper we empower the community to "build LIME yourself" (bLIMEy) by proposing a principled algorithmic framework for building custom local surrogate explainers of black-box model predictions, including LIME itself. To this end, we demonstrate how to decompose the surrogate explainers family into algorithmically independent and interoperable modules and discuss the influence of these component choices on the functional capabilities of the resulting explainer, using the example of LIME.Comment: 2019 Workshop on Human-Centric Machine Learning (HCML 2019); 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019), Vancouver, Canad

CoMEt: x86 Cost Model Explanation Framework

ML-based program cost models have been shown to yield highly accurate predictions. They have the capability to replace heavily-engineered analytical program cost models in mainstream compilers, but their black-box nature discourages their adoption. In this work, we propose the first method for obtaining faithful and intuitive explanations for the throughput predictions made by ML-based cost models. We demonstrate our explanations for the state-of-the-art ML-based cost model, Ithemal. We compare the explanations for Ithemal with the explanations for a hand-crafted, accurate analytical model, uiCA. Our empirical findings show that high similarity between explanations for Ithemal and uiCA usually corresponds to high similarity between their predictions

SpArX: Sparse Argumentative Explanations for Neural Networks

Neural networks (NNs) have various applications in AI, but explaining their decision process remains challenging. Existing approaches often focus on explaining how changing individual inputs affects NNs' outputs. However, an explanation that is consistent with the input-output behaviour of an NN is not necessarily faithful to the actual mechanics thereof. In this paper, we exploit relationships between multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) and quantitative argumentation frameworks (QAFs) to create argumentative explanations for the mechanics of MLPs. Our SpArX method first sparsifies the MLP while maintaining as much of the original mechanics as possible. It then translates the sparse MLP into an equivalent QAF to shed light on the underlying decision process of the MLP, producing global and/or local explanations. We demonstrate experimentally that SpArX can give more faithful explanations than existing approaches, while simultaneously providing deeper insights into the actual reasoning process of MLPs

AI for Explaining Decisions in Multi-Agent Environments

Explanation is necessary for humans to understand and accept decisions made by an AI system when the system's goal is known. It is even more important when the AI system makes decisions in multi-agent environments where the human does not know the systems' goals since they may depend on other agents' preferences. In such situations, explanations should aim to increase user satisfaction, taking into account the system's decision, the user's and the other agents' preferences, the environment settings and properties such as fairness, envy and privacy. Generating explanations that will increase user satisfaction is very challenging; to this end, we propose a new research direction: xMASE. We then review the state of the art and discuss research directions towards efficient methodologies and algorithms for generating explanations that will increase users' satisfaction from AI system's decisions in multi-agent environments.Comment: This paper has been submitted to the Blue Sky Track of the AAAI 2020 conference. At the time of submission, it is under review. The tentative notification date will be November 10, 2019. Current version: Name of first author had been added in metadat

Conceptual challenges for interpretable machine learning

As machine learning has gradually entered into ever more sectors of public and private life, there has been a growing demand for algorithmic explainability. How can we make the predictions of complex statistical models more intelligible to end users? A subdiscipline of computer science known as interpretable machine learning (IML) has emerged to address this urgent question. Numerous influential methods have been proposed, from local linear approximations to rule lists and counterfactuals. In this article, I highlight three conceptual challenges that are largely overlooked by authors in this area. I argue that the vast majority of IML algorithms are plagued by (1) ambiguity with respect to their true target; (2) a disregard for error rates and severe testing; and (3) an emphasis on product over process. Each point is developed at length, drawing on relevant debates in epistemology and philosophy of science. Examples and counterexamples from IML are considered, demonstrating how failure to acknowledge these problems can result in counterintuitive and potentially misleading explanations. Without greater care for the conceptual foundations of IML, future work in this area is doomed to repeat the same mistakes

Exploring Interpretability for Predictive Process Analytics

Modern predictive analytics underpinned by machine learning techniques has become a key enabler to the automation of data-driven decision making. In the context of business process management, predictive analytics has been applied to making predictions about the future state of an ongoing business process instance, for example, when will the process instance complete and what will be the outcome upon completion. Machine learning models can be trained on event log data recording historical process execution to build the underlying predictive models. Multiple techniques have been proposed so far which encode the information available in an event log and construct input features required to train a predictive model. While accuracy has been a dominant criterion in the choice of various techniques, they are often applied as a black-box in building predictive models. In this paper, we derive explanations using interpretable machine learning techniques to compare and contrast the suitability of multiple predictive models of high accuracy. The explanations allow us to gain an understanding of the underlying reasons for a prediction and highlight scenarios where accuracy alone may not be sufficient in assessing the suitability of techniques used to encode event log data to features used by a predictive model. Findings from this study motivate the need and importance to incorporate interpretability in predictive process analytics.Comment: 15 pages, 7 figure