When deep neural networks optimize highly complex functions, it is not always obvious how they reach the final decision. Providing explanations would make this decision process more transparent and improve a user's trust towards the machine as they help develop a better understanding of the rationale behind the network's predictions. Here, we present an explainable observer-classifier framework that exposes the steps taken through the model's decision-making process. Instead of assigning a label to an image in a single step, our model makes iterative binary sub-decisions, which reveal a decision tree as a thought process. In addition, our model allows to hierarchically cluster the data and give each binary decision a semantic meaning. The sequence of binary decisions learned by our model imitates human-annotated attributes. On six benchmark datasets with increasing size and granularity, our model outperforms the decision-tree baseline and generates easy-to-understand binary decision sequences explaining the network's predictions.
Explainability. The importance of explanations for an end-user has been studied from the psychological perspective @cite_29 , showing that humans use explanations as a guidance for learning and understanding by building inferences and seeking propositions or judgments that enrich their prior knowledge. They usually seek explanations to fill the requested gap depending on prior knowledge and the goal in question.
@cite_29
2116151961 2769542353 2765204106 2122889832
Abstract Human verbal explanations are essentially interactive. If someone is giving a complex explanation, the hearer will be given the opportunity to indicate whether they are following as the explanation proceeds, and if necessary interrupt with clarification questions. These interactions allow the speaker to both clear up the hearer's immediate difficulties as they arise, and to update assumptions about their level of understanding. Better models of the hearer's level of understanding in turn allow the speaker to continue the explanation in a more appropriate manner, lessening the risk of continuing confusion. Despite its apparent importance, existing explanation and text generation systems fail to allow for this sort of interaction. Although some systems allow follow-up questions at the end of an explanation, they assume that a complete explanation has been planned and generated before such interactions are allowed. However, for complex explanations interactions with the user should take place as the explanation progresses, and should influence how that explanation continues. This paper describes the EDGE system, which is able to plan complex, extended explanations which allow such interactions with the user. The system can update assumptions about the user's knowledge on the basis of these interactions, and uses this information to influence the detailed further planning of the explanation. When the user appears confused, the system can attempt to fill in missing knowledge or to explain things another way. Transparency, user trust, and human comprehension are popular ethical motivations for interpretable machine learning. In support of these goals, researchers evaluate model explanation performance using humans and real world applications. This alone presents a challenge in many areas of artificial intelligence. In this position paper, we propose a distinction between descriptive and persuasive explanations. We discuss reasoning suggesting that functional interpretability may be correlated with cognitive function and user preferences. If this is indeed the case, evaluation and optimization using functional metrics could perpetuate implicit cognitive bias in explanations that threaten transparency. Finally, we propose two potential research directions to disambiguate cognitive function and explanation models, retaining control over the tradeoff between accuracy and interpretability. 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. In this paper we focus on explaining to humans the behavior of autonomous agents, i.e., explainable agents. Explainable agents are useful for many reasons including scenario-based training (e.g. disaster training), tutor and pedagogical systems, agent development and debugging, gaming, and interactive storytelling. As the aim is to generate for humans plausible and insightful explanations, user evaluation of different explanations is essential. In this paper we test the hypothesis that different explanation types are needed to explain different types of actions. We present three different, generically applicable, algorithms that automatically generate different types of explanations for actions of BDI-based agents. Quantitative analysis of a user experiment (n=30), in which users rated the usefulness and naturalness of each explanation type for different agent actions, supports our hypothesis. In addition, we present feedback from the users about how they would explain the actions themselves. Finally, we hypothesize guidelines relevant for the development of explainable BDI agents.