There is a disconnect between explanatory artificial intelligence (XAI) methods and the types of explanations that are useful for and demanded by society (policy makers, government officials, etc.) Questions that experts in artificial intelligence (AI) ask opaque systems provide inside explanations, focused on debugging, reliability, and validation. These are different from those that society will ask of these systems to build trust and confidence in their decisions. Although explanatory AI systems can answer many questions that experts desire, they often don't explain why they made decisions in a way that is precise (true to the model) and understandable to humans. These outside explanations can be used to build trust, comply with regulatory and policy changes, and act as external validation. In this paper, we focus on XAI methods for deep neural networks (DNNs) because of DNNs' use in decision-making and inherent opacity. We explore the types of questions that explanatory DNN systems can answer and discuss challenges in building explanatory systems that provide outside explanations for societ al requirements and benefit.
In this work, we focus on the types of questions and explanations that explanatory DNN methods can answer. Recent work has looked at ways to correct neural network judgments @cite_12 and different ways to audit such networks by detecting biases @cite_7 . But these judgments are not enough to completely understand the model's decisions-making. Other work answers why questions by finding similar data points @cite_24 . Although these methods are clearly interpretable, they do not provide any unique insights into why the model made those decisions. Other work examining best practices for explanation @cite_18 provides a set of categories, but does not evaluate the questions that explanatory systems should be able to answer; which is necessary for policy makers and societ al trust in DNN decision processes.
@cite_24 @cite_18 @cite_7 @cite_12
2785760873 2953295770 2775079417 2240067561
Understanding the flow of information in Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) is a challenging problem that has gain increasing attention over the last few years. While several methods have been proposed to explain network predictions, there have been only a few attempts to compare them from a theoretical perspective. What is more, no exhaustive empirical comparison has been performed in the past. In this work we analyze four gradient-based attribution methods and formally prove conditions of equivalence and approximation between them. By reformulating two of these methods, we construct a unified framework which enables a direct comparison, as well as an easier implementation. Finally, we propose a novel evaluation metric, called Sensitivity-n and test the gradient-based attribution methods alongside with a simple perturbation-based attribution method on several datasets in the domains of image and text classification, using various network architectures. Understanding the flow of information in Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) is a challenging problem that has gain increasing attention over the last few years. While several methods have been proposed to explain network predictions, there have been only a few attempts to compare them from a theoretical perspective. What is more, no exhaustive empirical comparison has been performed in the past. In this work, we analyze four gradient-based attribution methods and formally prove conditions of equivalence and approximation between them. By reformulating two of these methods, we construct a unified framework which enables a direct comparison, as well as an easier implementation. Finally, we propose a novel evaluation metric, called Sensitivity-n and test the gradient-based attribution methods alongside with a simple perturbation-based attribution method on several datasets in the domains of image and text classification, using various network architectures. Spiking neural networks (SNNs) can potentially offer an efficient way of doing inference because the neurons in the networks are sparsely activated and computations are event-driven. Previous work showed that simple continuous-valued deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) can be converted into accurate spiking equivalents. These networks did not include certain common operations such as max-pooling, softmax, batch-normalization and Inception-modules. This paper presents spiking equivalents of these operations therefore allowing conversion of nearly arbitrary CNN architectures. We show conversion of popular CNN architectures, including VGG-16 and Inception-v3, into SNNs that produce the best results reported to date on MNIST, CIFAR-10 and the challenging ImageNet dataset. SNNs can trade off classification error rate against the number of available operations whereas deep continuous-valued neural networks require a fixed number of operations to achieve their classification error rate. From the examples of LeNet for MNIST and BinaryNet for CIFAR-10, we show that with an increase in error rate of a few percentage points, the SNNs can achieve more than 2x reductions in operations compared to the original CNNs. This highlights the potential of SNNs in particular when deployed on power-efficient neuromorphic spiking neuron chips, for use in embedded applications. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have demonstrated impressive performance in complex machine learning tasks such as image classification or speech recognition. However, due to their multilayer nonlinear structure, they are not transparent, i.e., it is hard to grasp what makes them arrive at a particular classification or recognition decision, given a new unseen data sample. Recently, several approaches have been proposed enabling one to understand and interpret the reasoning embodied in a DNN for a single test image. These methods quantify the “importance” of individual pixels with respect to the classification decision and allow a visualization in terms of a heatmap in pixel input space. While the usefulness of heatmaps can be judged subjectively by a human, an objective quality measure is missing. In this paper, we present a general methodology based on region perturbation for evaluating ordered collections of pixels such as heatmaps. We compare heatmaps computed by three different methods on the SUN397, ILSVRC2012, and MIT Places data sets. Our main result is that the recently proposed layer-wise relevance propagation algorithm qualitatively and quantitatively provides a better explanation of what made a DNN arrive at a particular classification decision than the sensitivity-based approach or the deconvolution method. We provide theoretical arguments to explain this result and discuss its practical implications. Finally, we investigate the use of heatmaps for unsupervised assessment of the neural network performance.