Since most machine learning models provide no explanations for the predictions, their predictions are obscure for the human. The ability to explain a model's prediction has become a necessity in many applications including Twitter mining. In this work, we propose a method called Explainable Twitter Mining (Ex-Twit) combining Topic Modeling and Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanation (LIME) to predict the topic and explain the model predictions. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Ex-Twit on Twitter health-related data.
Machine learning systems have become increasingly powerful and complex day by day. Developing sparse interpretable models is of considerable interest to the broader research community @cite_15 ; @cite_26 ; @cite_0 . To justify predictions made by neural networks, @cite_0 built modular neural framework to automatically generate concise yet sufficient text fragments. @cite_2 proposed a model agnostic framework (LIME) where the proxy model is learned ensuring locally valid approximations for the target sample and its neighborhood. In this paper, we incorporate LIME @cite_2 framework with topic modeling.
@cite_0 @cite_15 @cite_26 @cite_2
2420245003 2951501516 2282821441 2189774688
Understanding why machine learning models behave the way they do empowers both system designers and end-users in many ways: in model selection, feature engineering, in order to trust and act upon the predictions, and in more intuitive user interfaces. Thus, interpretability has become a vital concern in machine learning, and work in the area of interpretable models has found renewed interest. In some applications, such models are as accurate as non-interpretable ones, and thus are preferred for their transparency. Even when they are not accurate, they may still be preferred when interpretability is of paramount importance. However, restricting machine learning to interpretable models is often a severe limitation. In this paper we argue for explaining machine learning predictions using model-agnostic approaches. By treating the machine learning models as black-box functions, these approaches provide crucial flexibility in the choice of models, explanations, and representations, improving debugging, comparison, and interfaces for a variety of users and models. We also outline the main challenges for such methods, and review a recently-introduced model-agnostic explanation approach (LIME) that addresses these challenges. Despite widespread adoption, machine learning models remain mostly black boxes. Understanding the reasons behind predictions is, however, quite important in assessing trust, which is fundamental if one plans to take action based on a prediction, or when choosing whether to deploy a new model. Such understanding also provides insights into the model, which can be used to transform an untrustworthy model or prediction into a trustworthy one. In this work, we propose LIME, a novel explanation technique that explains the predictions of any classifier in an interpretable and faithful manner, by learning an interpretable model locally around the prediction. We also propose a method to explain models by presenting representative individual predictions and their explanations in a non-redundant way, framing the task as a submodular optimization problem. We demonstrate the flexibility of these methods by explaining different models for text (e.g. random forests) and image classification (e.g. neural networks). We show the utility of explanations via novel experiments, both simulated and with human subjects, on various scenarios that require trust: deciding if one should trust a prediction, choosing between models, improving an untrustworthy classifier, and identifying why a classifier should not be trusted. Despite widespread adoption, machine learning models remain mostly black boxes. Understanding the reasons behind predictions is, however, quite important in assessing trust, which is fundamental if one plans to take action based on a prediction, or when choosing whether to deploy a new model. Such understanding also provides insights into the model, which can be used to transform an untrustworthy model or prediction into a trustworthy one. In this work, we propose LIME, a novel explanation technique that explains the predictions of any classifier in an interpretable and faithful manner, by learning an interpretable model locally varound the prediction. We also propose a method to explain models by presenting representative individual predictions and their explanations in a non-redundant way, framing the task as a submodular optimization problem. We demonstrate the flexibility of these methods by explaining different models for text (e.g. random forests) and image classification (e.g. neural networks). We show the utility of explanations via novel experiments, both simulated and with human subjects, on various scenarios that require trust: deciding if one should trust a prediction, choosing between models, improving an untrustworthy classifier, and identifying why a classifier should not be trusted. This paper proposes to learn high-performance deep ConvNets with sparse neural connections, referred to as sparse ConvNets, for face recognition. The sparse ConvNets are learned in an iterative way, each time one additional layer is sparsified and the entire model is re-trained given the initial weights learned in previous iterations. One important finding is that directly training the sparse ConvNet from scratch failed to find good solutions for face recognition, while using a previously learned denser model to properly initialize a sparser model is critical to continue learning effective features for face recognition. This paper also proposes a new neural correlation-based weight selection criterion and empirically verifies its effectiveness in selecting informative connections from previously learned models in each iteration. When taking a moderately sparse structure (26 -76 of weights in the dense model), the proposed sparse ConvNet model significantly improves the face recognition performance of the previous state-of-theart DeepID2+ models given the same training data, while it keeps the performance of the baseline model with only 12 of the original parameters.