19,212 research outputs found
On Cognitive Preferences and the Plausibility of Rule-based Models
It is conventional wisdom in machine learning and data mining that logical
models such as rule sets are more interpretable than other models, and that
among such rule-based models, simpler models are more interpretable than more
complex ones. In this position paper, we question this latter assumption by
focusing on one particular aspect of interpretability, namely the plausibility
of models. Roughly speaking, we equate the plausibility of a model with the
likeliness that a user accepts it as an explanation for a prediction. In
particular, we argue that, all other things being equal, longer explanations
may be more convincing than shorter ones, and that the predominant bias for
shorter models, which is typically necessary for learning powerful
discriminative models, may not be suitable when it comes to user acceptance of
the learned models. To that end, we first recapitulate evidence for and against
this postulate, and then report the results of an evaluation in a
crowd-sourcing study based on about 3.000 judgments. The results do not reveal
a strong preference for simple rules, whereas we can observe a weak preference
for longer rules in some domains. We then relate these results to well-known
cognitive biases such as the conjunction fallacy, the representative heuristic,
or the recogition heuristic, and investigate their relation to rule length and
plausibility.Comment: V4: Another rewrite of section on interpretability to clarify focus
on plausibility and relation to interpretability, comprehensibility, and
justifiabilit
Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systems
The recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure decision
systems which hide the logic of their internal decision processes to the users.
The lack of explanations for the decisions of black box systems is a key
ethical issue, and a limitation to the adoption of machine learning components
in socially sensitive and safety-critical contexts. %Therefore, we need
explanations that reveals the reasons why a predictor takes a certain decision.
In this paper we focus on the problem of black box outcome explanation, i.e.,
explaining the reasons of the decision taken on a specific instance. We propose
LORE, an agnostic method able to provide interpretable and faithful
explanations. LORE first leans a local interpretable predictor on a synthetic
neighborhood generated by a genetic algorithm. Then it derives from the logic
of the local interpretable predictor a meaningful explanation consisting of: a
decision rule, which explains the reasons of the decision; and a set of
counterfactual rules, suggesting the changes in the instance's features that
lead to a different outcome. Wide experiments show that LORE outperforms
existing methods and baselines both in the quality of explanations and in the
accuracy in mimicking the black box
The Pragmatic Turn in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
In this paper I argue that the search for explainable models and interpretable decisions in AI must be reformulated in terms of the broader project of offering a pragmatic and naturalistic account of understanding in AI. Intuitively, the purpose of providing an explanation of a model or a decision is to make it understandable to its stakeholders. But without a previous grasp of what it means to say that an agent understands a model or a decision, the explanatory strategies will lack a well-defined goal. Aside from providing a clearer objective for XAI, focusing on understanding also allows us to relax the factivity condition on explanation, which is impossible to fulfill in many machine learning models, and to focus instead on the pragmatic conditions that determine the best fit between a model and the methods and devices deployed to understand it. After an examination of the different types of understanding discussed in the philosophical and psychological literature, I conclude that interpretative or approximation models not only provide the best way to achieve the objectual understanding of a machine learning model, but are also a necessary condition to achieve post hoc interpretability. This conclusion is partly based on the shortcomings of the purely functionalist approach to post hoc interpretability that seems to be predominant in most recent literature
Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR
There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General
Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages.
Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic
decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the
functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their
rationale in specific cases is a technically challenging problem. Some
explanations may offer little meaningful information to data subjects, raising
questions around their value. Explanations of automated decisions need not
hinge on the general public understanding how algorithmic systems function.
Even though such interpretability is of great importance and should be pursued,
explanations can, in principle, be offered without opening the black box.
Looking at explanations as a means to help a data subject act rather than
merely understand, one could gauge the scope and content of explanations
according to the specific goal or action they are intended to support. From the
perspective of individuals affected by automated decision-making, we propose
three aims for explanations: (1) to inform and help the individual understand
why a particular decision was reached, (2) to provide grounds to contest the
decision if the outcome is undesired, and (3) to understand what would need to
change in order to receive a desired result in the future, based on the current
decision-making model. We assess how each of these goals finds support in the
GDPR. We suggest data controllers should offer a particular type of
explanation, unconditional counterfactual explanations, to support these three
aims. These counterfactual explanations describe the smallest change to the
world that can be made to obtain a desirable outcome, or to arrive at the
closest possible world, without needing to explain the internal logic of the
system
A survey of methods for explaining black box models
In recent years, many accurate decision support systems have been constructed as black boxes, that is as systems that hide their internal logic to the user. This lack of explanation constitutes both a practical and an ethical issue. The literature reports many approaches aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness, sometimes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy for interpretability. The applications in which black box decision systems can be used are various, and each approach is typically developed to provide a solution for a specific problem and, as a consequence, it explicitly or implicitly delineates its own definition of interpretability and explanation. The aim of this article is to provide a classification of the main problems addressed in the literature with respect to the notion of explanation and the type of black box system. Given a problem definition, a black box type, and a desired explanation, this survey should help the researcher to find the proposals more useful for his own work. The proposed classification of approaches to open black box models should also be useful for putting the many research open questions in perspective
Explaining Explanations in AI
Recent work on interpretability in machine learning and AI has focused on the building of simplified models that approximate the true criteria used to make decisions. These models are a useful pedagogical device for teaching trained professionals how to predict what decisions will be made by the complex system, and most importantly how the system might break. However, when considering any such model it’s important to remember Box’s maxim that "All models are wrong but some are useful." We focus on the distinction between these models and explanations in philosophy and sociology. These models can be understood as a "do it yourself kit" for explanations, allowing a practitioner to directly answer "what if questions" or generate contrastive explanations without external assistance. Although a valuable ability, giving these models as explanations appears more difficult than necessary, and other forms of explanation may not have the same trade-offs. We contrast the different schools of thought on what makes an explanation, and suggest that machine learning might benefit from viewing the problem more broadly
- …