Recently, a method [7] was proposed to generate contrastive explanations for differentiable models such as deep neural networks, where one has complete access to the model. In this work, we propose a method, Model Agnostic Contrastive Explanations Method (MACEM), to generate contrastive explanations for classification model where one is able to query the class probabilities for a desired input. This allows us to generate contrastive explanations for not only neural networks, but models such as random forests, boosted trees and even arbitrary ensembles that are still amongst the state-of-the-art when learning on structured data [13]. Moreover, to obtain meaningful explanations we propose a principled approach to handle real and categorical features leading to novel formulations for computing pertinent positives and negatives that form the essence of a contrastive explanation. A detailed treatment of the different data types of this nature was not performed in the previous work, which assumed all features to be positive real valued with zero being indicative of the least interesting value. We part with this strong implicit assumption and generalize these methods so as to be applicable across a much wider range of problem settings. We quantitatively and qualitatively validate our approach over 5 public datasets covering diverse domains.
Trust and transparency of AI systems has received a lot of attention recently @cite_35 . Explainability is considered to be one of the cornerstones for building trustworthy systems and has been of particular focus in the research community @cite_16 @cite_37 . Researchers are trying to build better performing interpretable models @cite_5 @cite_14 @cite_9 @cite_32 @cite_36 @cite_24 as well as improved methods to understand black box models such as deep neural networks @cite_2 @cite_19 @cite_13 .
@cite_35 @cite_37 @cite_14 @cite_36 @cite_9 @cite_32 @cite_24 @cite_19 @cite_2 @cite_5 @cite_16 @cite_13
2762968537 2808925008 2769542353 2803532212
We characterize three notions of explainable AI that cut across research fields: opaque systems that offer no insight into its algo- rithmic mechanisms; interpretable systems where users can mathemat- ically analyze its algorithmic mechanisms; and comprehensible systems that emit symbols enabling user-driven explanations of how a conclusion is reached. The paper is motivated by a corpus analysis of NIPS, ACL, COGSCI, and ICCV ECCV paper titles showing differences in how work on explainable AI is positioned in various fields. We close by introducing a fourth notion: truly explainable systems, where automated reasoning is central to output crafted explanations without requiring human post processing as final step of the generative process. The widescale use of machine learning algorithms to drive decision-making has highlighted the critical importance of ensuring the interpretability of such models in order to engender trust in their output. The state-of-the-art recommendation systems use black-box latent factor models that provide no explanation of why a recommendation has been made, as they abstract their decision processes to a high-dimensional latent space which is beyond the direct comprehension of humans. We propose a novel approach for extracting explanations from latent factor recommendation systems by training association rules on the output of a matrix factorisation black-box model. By taking advantage of the interpretable structure of association rules, we demonstrate that predictive accuracy of the recommendation model can be maintained whilst yielding explanations with high fidelity to the black-box model on a unique industry dataset. Our approach mitigates the accuracy-interpretability trade-off whilst avoiding the need to sacrifice flexibility or use external data sources. We also contribute to the ill-defined problem of evaluating interpretability. 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. The recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure decision systems which hide the logic of their internal decision processes to the users. The lack of explanations for the decisions of black box systems is a key ethical issue, and a limitation to the adoption of machine learning components in socially sensitive and safety-critical contexts. Therefore, we need explanations that reveals the reasons why a predictor takes a certain decision. In this paper we focus on the problem of black box outcome explanation, i.e., explaining the reasons of the decision taken on a specific instance. We propose LORE, an agnostic method able to provide interpretable and faithful explanations. LORE first leans a local interpretable predictor on a synthetic neighborhood generated by a genetic algorithm. Then it derives from the logic of the local interpretable predictor a meaningful explanation consisting of: a decision rule, which explains the reasons of the decision; and a set of counterfactual rules, suggesting the changes in the instance's features that lead to a different outcome. Wide experiments show that LORE outperforms existing methods and baselines both in the quality of explanations and in the accuracy in mimicking the black box.