By their nature, the composition of black box models is opaque. This makes the ability to generate explanations for the response to stimuli challenging. The importance of explaining black box models has become increasingly important given the prevalence of AI and ML systems and the need to build legal and regulatory frameworks around them. Such explanations can also increase trust in these uncertain systems. In our paper we present RICE, a method for generating explanations of the behaviour of black box models by (1) probing a model to extract model output examples using sensitivity analysis; (2) applying CNPInduce, a method for inductive logic program synthesis, to generate logic programs based on critical input-output pairs; and (3) interpreting the target program as a human-readable explanation. We demonstrate the application of our method by generating explanations of an artificial neural network trained to follow simple traffic rules in a hypothetical self-driving car simulation. We conclude with a discussion on the scalability and usability of our approach and its potential applications to explanation-critical scenarios.
Approaches to generating human-readable explanation models include the Automatic Statistician, a system that discovers plausible models from data and automatically presents its findings as figures and as natural language @cite_9 @cite_19 , LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) @cite_0 , a method for isolating parts of a given input that contribute most to a classification, and QII (Quantitative Input Influence) @cite_5 , a technique for calculating influences of individual inputs or groups of inputs, each provides explanations as summaries of local causal phenomena. A recent survey lists various methods in explainable AI, and notes that due to rise in autonomous systems and complex models, there is even more need for interpretable models @cite_11 .
@cite_9 @cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_5 @cite_11
1494192115 2282821441 1950803081 2510508396
A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. Algorithmic systems that employ machine learning play an increasing role in making substantive decisions in modern society, ranging from online personalization to insurance and credit decisions to predictive policing. But their decision-making processes are often opaque -- it is difficult to explain why a certain decision was made. We develop a formal foundation to improve the transparency of such decision-making systems. Specifically, we introduce a family of Quantitative Input Influence (QII) measures that capture the degree of influence of inputs on outputs of systems. These measures provide a foundation for the design of transparency reports that accompany system decisions (e.g., explaining a specific credit decision) and for testing tools useful for internal and external oversight (e.g., to detect algorithmic discrimination). Distinctively, our causal QII measures carefully account for correlated inputs while measuring influence. They support a general class of transparency queries and can, in particular, explain decisions about individuals (e.g., a loan decision) and groups (e.g., disparate impact based on gender). Finally, since single inputs may not always have high influence, the QII measures also quantify the joint influence of a set of inputs (e.g., age and income) on outcomes (e.g. loan decisions) and the marginal influence of individual inputs within such a set (e.g., income). Since a single input may be part of multiple influential sets, the average marginal influence of the input is computed using principled aggregation measures, such as the Shapley value, previously applied to measure influence in voting. Further, since transparency reports could compromise privacy, we explore the transparency-privacy tradeoff and prove that a number of useful transparency reports can be made differentially private with very little addition of noise. Our empirical validation with standard machine learning algorithms demonstrates that QII measures are a useful transparency mechanism when black box access to the learning system is available. In particular, they provide better explanations than standard associative measures for a host of scenarios that we consider. Further, we show that in the situations we consider, QII is efficiently approximable and can be made differentially private while preserving accuracy. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... Algorithmic systems that employ machine learning are often opaque—it is difficult to explain why a certain decision was made. We present a formal foundation to improve the transparency of such decision-making systems. Specifically, we introduce a family of Quantitative Input Influence (QII) measures that capture the degree of input influence on system outputs. These measures provide a foundation for the design of transparency reports that accompany system decisions (e.g., explaining a specific credit decision) and for testing tools useful for internal and external oversight (e.g., to detect algorithmic discrimination). Distinctively, our causal QII measures carefully account for correlated inputs while measuring influence. They support a general class of transparency queries and can, in particular, explain decisions about individuals and groups. Finally, since single inputs may not always have high influence, the QII measures also quantify the joint influence of a set of inputs (e.g., age and income) on outcomes (e.g. loan decisions) and the average marginal influence of individual inputs within such a set (e.g., income) using principled aggregation measures, such as the Shapley value, previously applied to measure influence in voting. Explanations of the decisions made by a deep neural network are important for human end-users to be able to understand and diagnose the trustworthiness of the system. Current neural networks used for visual recognition are generally used as black boxes that do not provide any human interpretable justification for a prediction. In this work we propose a new framework called Interpretable Basis Decomposition for providing visual explanations for classification networks. By decomposing the neural activations of the input image into semantically interpretable components pre-trained from a large concept corpus, the proposed framework is able to disentangle the evidence encoded in the activation feature vector, and quantify the contribution of each piece of evidence to the final prediction. We apply our framework for providing explanations to several popular networks for visual recognition, and show it is able to explain the predictions given by the networks in a human-interpretable way. The human interpretability of the visual explanations provided by our framework and other recent explanation methods is evaluated through Amazon Mechanical Turk, showing that our framework generates more faithful and interpretable explanations (The code and data are available at https: github.com CSAILVision IBD). Advances in artificial intelligence, sensors and big data management have far-reaching societ al impacts. As these systems augment our everyday lives, it becomes increasing-ly important for people to understand them and remain in control. We investigate how HCI researchers can help to develop accountable systems by performing a literature analysis of 289 core papers on explanations and explaina-ble systems, as well as 12,412 citing papers. Using topic modeling, co-occurrence and network analysis, we mapped the research space from diverse domains, such as algorith-mic accountability, interpretable machine learning, context-awareness, cognitive psychology, and software learnability. We reveal fading and burgeoning trends in explainable systems, and identify domains that are closely connected or mostly isolated. The time is ripe for the HCI community to ensure that the powerful new autonomous systems have intelligible interfaces built-in. From our results, we propose several implications and directions for future research to-wards this goal. 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. 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. 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. Explaining decisions of deep neural networks is a hot research topic with applications in medical imaging, video surveillance, and self driving cars. Many methods have been proposed in literature to explain these decisions by identifying relevance of different pixels. In this paper, we propose a method that can generate contrastive explanations for such data where we not only highlight aspects that are in themselves sufficient to justify the classification by the deep model, but also new aspects which if added will change the classification. One of our key contributions is how we define "addition" for such rich data in a formal yet humanly interpretable way that leads to meaningful results. This was one of the open questions laid out in Dhurandhar this http URL. (2018) [5], which proposed a general framework for creating (local) contrastive explanations for deep models. We showcase the efficacy of our approach on CelebA and Fashion-MNIST in creating intuitive explanations that are also quantitatively superior compared with other state-of-the-art interpretability methods. 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. Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60] In this paper we propose a novel method that provides contrastive explanations justifying the classification of an input by a black box classifier such as a deep neural network. Given an input we find what should be minimally and sufficiently present (viz. important object pixels in an image) to justify its classification and analogously what should be minimally and necessarily (viz. certain background pixels). We argue that such explanations are natural for humans and are used commonly in domains such as health care and criminology. What is minimally but critically is an important part of an explanation, which to the best of our knowledge, has not been explicitly identified by current explanation methods that explain predictions of neural networks. We validate our approach on three real datasets obtained from diverse domains; namely, a handwritten digits dataset MNIST, a large procurement fraud dataset and a brain activity strength dataset. In all three cases, we witness the power of our approach in generating precise explanations that are also easy for human experts to understand and evaluate. 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. Deep neural perception and control networks are likely to be a key component of self-driving vehicles. These models need to be explainable - they should provide easy-tointerpret rationales for their behavior - so that passengers, insurance companies, law enforcement, developers etc., can understand what triggered a particular behavior. Here we explore the use of visual explanations. These explanations take the form of real-time highlighted regions of an image that causally influence the network’s output (steering control). Our approach is two-stage. In the first stage, we use a visual attention model to train a convolution network endto- end from images to steering angle. The attention model highlights image regions that potentially influence the network’s output. Some of these are true influences, but some are spurious. We then apply a causal filtering step to determine which input regions actually influence the output. This produces more succinct visual explanations and more accurately exposes the network’s behavior. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model on three datasets totaling 16 hours of driving. We first show that training with attention does not degrade the performance of the end-to-end network. Then we show that the network causally cues on a variety of features that are used by humans while driving. Recent years have seen a boom in interest in machine learning systems that can provide a human-understandable rationale for their predictions or decisions. However, exactly what kinds of explanation are truly human-interpretable remains poorly understood. This work advances our understanding of what makes explanations interpretable in the specific context of verification. Suppose we have a machine learning system that predicts X, and we provide rationale for this prediction X. Given an input, an explanation, and an output, is the output consistent with the input and the supposed rationale? Via a series of user-studies, we identify what kinds of increases in complexity have the greatest effect on the time it takes for humans to verify the rationale, and which seem relatively insensitive. Many abductive understanding systems explain novel situations by a chaining process that is neutral to explainer needs beyond generating some plausible explanation for the event being explained. This paper examines the relationship of standard models of abductive understanding to the case-based explanation model. In case-based explanation, construction and selection of abductive hypotheses are focused by specific explanations of prior episodes and by goal-based criteria reflecting current information needs. The case-based method is inspired by observations of human explanation of anomalous events during everyday understanding, and this paper focuses on the method's contributions to the problems of building good explanations in everyday domains. We identify five central issues, compare how those issues are addressed in traditional and case-based explanation models, and discuss motivations for using the case-based approach to facilitate generation of plausible and useful explanations in domains that are complex and imperfectly understood. Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 .