The Grammar of Interactive Explanatory Model Analysis

The growing need for in-depth analysis of predictive models leads to a series of new methods for explaining their local and global properties. Which of these methods is the best? It turns out that this is an ill-posed question. One cannot sufficiently explain a black-box machine learning model using a single method that gives only one perspective. Isolated explanations are prone to misunderstanding, which inevitably leads to wrong or simplistic reasoning. This problem is known as the Rashomon effect and refers to diverse, even contradictory interpretations of the same phenomenon. Surprisingly, the majority of methods developed for explainable machine learning focus on a single aspect of the model behavior. In contrast, we showcase the problem of explainability as an interactive and sequential analysis of a model. This paper presents how different Explanatory Model Analysis (EMA) methods complement each other and why it is essential to juxtapose them together. The introduced process of Interactive EMA (IEMA) derives from the algorithmic side of explainable machine learning and aims to embrace ideas developed in cognitive sciences. We formalize the grammar of IEMA to describe potential human-model dialogues. IEMA is implemented in the human-centered framework that adopts interactivity, customizability and automation as its main traits. Combined, these methods enhance the responsible approach to predictive modeling.Comment: 17 pages, 10 figures, 3 table

archivist: An R Package for Managing, Recording and Restoring Data Analysis Results

Everything that exists in R is an object [Chambers2016]. This article examines what would be possible if we kept copies of all R objects that have ever been created. Not only objects but also their properties, meta-data, relations with other objects and information about context in which they were created. We introduce archivist, an R package designed to improve the management of results of data analysis. Key functionalities of this package include: (i) management of local and remote repositories which contain R objects and their meta-data (objects' properties and relations between them); (ii) archiving R objects to repositories; (iii) sharing and retrieving objects (and it's pedigree) by their unique hooks; (iv) searching for objects with specific properties or relations to other objects; (v) verification of object's identity and context of it's creation. The presented archivist package extends, in a combination with packages such as knitr and Sweave, the reproducible research paradigm by creating new ways to retrieve and validate previously calculated objects. These new features give a variety of opportunities such as: sharing R objects within reports or articles; adding hooks to R objects in table or figure captions; interactive exploration of object repositories; caching function calls with their results; retrieving object's pedigree (information about how the object was created); automated tracking of the performance of considered models, restoring R libraries to the state in which object was archived.Comment: Submitted to JSS in 2015, conditionally accepte

How much should you ask? On the question structure in QA systems

Datasets that boosted state-of-the-art solutions for Question Answering (QA) systems prove that it is possible to ask questions in natural language manner. However, users are still used to query-like systems where they type in keywords to search for answer. In this study we validate which parts of questions are essential for obtaining valid answer. In order to conclude that, we take advantage of LIME - a framework that explains prediction by local approximation. We find that grammar and natural language is disregarded by QA. State-of-the-art model can answer properly even if 'asked' only with a few words with high coefficients calculated with LIME. According to our knowledge, it is the first time that QA model is being explained by LIME.Comment: Accepted to Analyzing and interpreting neural networks for NLP workshop at EMNLP 201

Adversarial Attacks and Defenses in Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Survey

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods are portrayed as a remedy for debugging and trusting statistical and deep learning models, as well as interpreting their predictions. However, recent advances in adversarial machine learning (AdvML) highlight the limitations and vulnerabilities of state-of-the-art explanation methods, putting their security and trustworthiness into question. The possibility of manipulating, fooling or fairwashing evidence of the model's reasoning has detrimental consequences when applied in high-stakes decision-making and knowledge discovery. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of research concerning adversarial attacks on explanations of machine learning models, as well as fairness metrics. We introduce a unified notation and taxonomy of methods facilitating a common ground for researchers and practitioners from the intersecting research fields of AdvML and XAI. We discuss how to defend against attacks and design robust interpretation methods. We contribute a list of existing insecurities in XAI and outline the emerging research directions in adversarial XAI (AdvXAI). Future work should address improving explanation methods and evaluation protocols to take into account the reported safety issues.Comment: A shorter version of this paper was presented at the IJCAI 2023 Workshop on Explainable A