Knowledge bases are employed in a variety of applications from natural language processing to semantic web search; alas, in practice their usefulness is hurt by their incompleteness. Embedding models attain state-of-the-art accuracy in knowledge base completion, but their predictions are notoriously hard to interpret. In this paper, we adapt "pedagogical approaches" (from the literature on neural networks) so as to interpret embedding models by extracting weighted Horn rules from them. We show how pedagogical approaches have to be adapted to take upon the large-scale relational aspects of knowledge bases and show experimentally their strengths and weaknesses.
In this section we offer a summary of important concepts in knowledge base (KB) completion (Section ), and a brief review of relevant work on the interpretation of embedding models of knowledge bases (Section ). In doing so we touch on issues that have been debated at length in previous work, such as the proper meaning and the quantification of interpretability @cite_26 @cite_18 @cite_15 . In short, we assume that an interpretable system is one that allows the user to study and grasp its underlying mathematics @cite_26 .
@cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_15
2439568532 2762968537 2126159342
Supervised machine learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? We want models to be not only good, but interpretable. And yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. Papers provide diverse and sometimes non-overlapping motivations for interpretability, and offer myriad notions of what attributes render models interpretable. Despite this ambiguity, many papers proclaim interpretability axiomatically, absent further explanation. In this paper, we seek to refine the discourse on interpretability. First, we examine the motivations underlying interest in interpretability, finding them to be diverse and occasionally discordant. Then, we address model properties and techniques thought to confer interpretability, identifying transparency to humans and post-hoc explanations as competing notions. Throughout, we discuss the feasibility and desirability of different notions, and question the oft-made assertions that linear models are interpretable and that deep neural networks are not. 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. This paper provides a comprehensive review of explanations in recommender systems. We highlight seven possible advantages of an explanation facility, and describe how existing measures can be used to evaluate the quality of explanations. Since explanations are not independent of the recommendation process, we consider how the ways recommendations are presented may affect explanations. Next, we look at different ways of interacting with explanations. The paper is illustrated with examples of explanations throughout, where possible from existing applications.