Automated rationale generation is an approach for real-time explanation generation whereby a computational model learns to translate an autonomous agent's internal state and action data representations into natural language. Training on human explanation data can enable agents to learn to generate human-like explanations for their behavior. In this paper, using the context of an agent that plays Frogger, we describe (a) how to collect a corpus of explanations, (b) how to train a neural rationale generator to produce different styles of rationales, and (c) how people perceive these rationales. We conducted two user studies. The first study establishes the plausibility of each type of generated rationale and situates their user perceptions along the dimensions of confidence, humanlike-ness, adequate justification, and understandability. The second study further explores user preferences between the generated rationales with regard to confidence in the autonomous agent, communicating failure and unexpected behavior. Overall, we find alignment between the intended differences in features of the generated rationales and the perceived differences by users. Moreover, context permitting, participants preferred detailed rationales to form a stable mental model of the agent's behavior.
Much of the previous work on explainable AI has focused on interpretability . While there is no one definition of interpretability with respect to machine learning models, we view interpretability as a property of machine learned models that dictate the degree to which a human user---AI expert or user---can come to conclusions about the performance of the model on specific inputs. Some types of models are inherently interpretable, meaning they require relatively little effort to understand. Other types of models require more effort to make sense of their performance on specific inputs. Some non-inherently interpretable models can be made interpretable in a post-hoc fashion through explanation or visualization. Model-agnostic post-hoc methods can help to make models intelligible without custom explanation or visualization technologies and without changing the underlying model to make them more interpretable @cite_9 @cite_8 .
@cite_9 @cite_8
2420245003 2788362053 2963041618 2554930721
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 a growing body of research focused on creating interpretable machine learning methods, there have been few empirical studies verifying whether interpretable methods achieve their intended effects on end users. We present a framework for assessing the effects of model interpretability on users via pre-registered experiments in which participants are shown functionally identical models that vary in factors thought to influence interpretability. Using this framework, we ran a sequence of large-scale randomized experiments, varying two putative drivers of interpretability: the number of features and the model transparency (clear or black-box). We measured how these factors impact trust in model predictions, the ability to simulate a model, and the ability to detect a model's mistakes. We found that participants who were shown a clear model with a small number of features were better able to simulate the model's predictions. However, we found no difference in multiple measures of trust and found that clear models did not improve the ability to correct mistakes. These findings suggest that interpretability research could benefit from more emphasis on empirically verifying that interpretable models achieve all their intended effects. Model interpretability is a requirement in many applications in which crucial decisions are made by users relying on a model's outputs. The recent movement for “algorithmic fairness” also stipulates explainability, and therefore interpretability of learning models. And yet the most successful contemporary Machine Learning approaches, the Deep Neural Networks, produce models that are highly non-interpretable. We attempt to address this challenge by proposing a technique called CNN-INTE to interpret deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) via meta-learning. In this work, we interpret a specific hidden layer of the deep CNN model on the MNIST image dataset. We use a clustering algorithm in a two-level structure to find the meta-level training data and Random Forest as base learning algorithms to generate the meta-level test data. The interpretation results are displayed visually via diagrams, which clearly indicates how a specific test instance is classified. Our method achieves global interpretation for all the test instances on the hidden layers without sacrificing the accuracy obtained by the original deep CNN model. This means our model is faithful to the original deep CNN model, which leads to reliable interpretations. With the advent of highly predictive but opaque deep learning models, it has become more important than ever to understand and explain the predictions of such models. Existing approaches define interpretability as the inverse of complexity and achieve interpretability at the cost of accuracy. This introduces a risk of producing interpretable but misleading explanations. As humans, we are prone to engage in this kind of behavior mythos . In this paper, we take a step in the direction of tackling the problem of interpretability without compromising the model accuracy. We propose to build a Treeview representation of the complex model via hierarchical partitioning of the feature space, which reveals the iterative rejection of unlikely class labels until the correct association is predicted.