“Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation using Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Networks”の学習報告

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI

In recent years, many accurate decision support systems have been constructed as black boxes, that is as systems that hide their internal logic to the user. This lack of explanation constitutes both a practical and an ethical issue. The literature reports many approaches aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness, sometimes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy for interpretability. The applications in which black box decision systems can be used are various, and each approach is typically developed to provide a solution for a specific problem and, as a consequence, it explicitly or implicitly delineates its own definition of interpretability and explanation. The aim of this article is to provide a classification of the main problems addressed in the literature with respect to the notion of explanation and the type of black box system. Given a problem definition, a black box type, and a desired explanation, this survey should help the researcher to find the proposals more useful for his own work. The proposed classification of approaches to open black box models should also be useful for putting the many research open questions in perspective.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3236009

A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models

As machine learning systems become ubiquitous, there has been a surge of interest in interpretable machine learning: systems that provide explanation for their outputs. These explanations are often used to qualitatively assess other criteria such as safety or non-discrimination. However, despite the interest in interpretability, there is very little consensus on what interpretable machine learning is and how it should be measured. In this position paper, we first define interpretability and describe when interpretability is needed (and when it is not). Next, we suggest a taxonomy for rigorous evaluation and expose open questions towards a more rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.

Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning

Tree-based machine learning models such as random forests, decision trees and gradient boosted trees are popular nonlinear predictive models, yet comparatively little attention has been paid to explaining their predictions. Here we improve the interpretability of tree-based models through three main contributions. (1) A polynomial time algorithm to compute optimal explanations based on game theory. (2) A new type of explanation that directly measures local feature interaction effects. (3) A new set of tools for understanding global model structure based on combining many local explanations of each prediction. We apply these tools to three medical machine learning problems and show how combining many high-quality local explanations allows us to represent global structure while retaining local faithfulness to the original model. These tools enable us to (1) identify high-magnitude but low-frequency nonlinear mortality risk factors in the US population, (2) highlight distinct population subgroups with shared risk characteristics, (3) identify nonlinear interaction effects among risk factors for chronic kidney disease and (4) monitor a machine learning model deployed in a hospital by identifying which features are degrading the model’s performance over time. Given the popularity of tree-based machine learning models, these improvements to their interpretability have implications across a broad set of domains. Tree-based machine learning models are widely used in domains such as healthcare, finance and public services. The authors present an explanation method for trees that enables the computation of optimal local explanations for individual predictions, and demonstrate their method on three medical datasets.

/pdf/from-local-explanations-to-global-understanding-with-2a9bkpgseg.pdf

From Local Explanations to Global Understanding with Explainable AI for Trees.

Explaining the output of a deep network remains a challenge. In the case of an image classifier, one type of explanation is to identify pixels that strongly influence the final decision. A starting point for this strategy is the gradient of the class score function with respect to the input image. This gradient can be interpreted as a sensitivity map, and there are several techniques that elaborate on this basic idea. This paper makes two contributions: it introduces SmoothGrad, a simple method that can help visually sharpen gradient-based sensitivity maps, and it discusses lessons in the visualization of these maps. We publish the code for our experiments and a website with our results.

SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise

Saliency methods have emerged as a popular tool to highlight features in an input deemed relevant for the prediction of a learned model. Several saliency methods have been proposed, often guided by visual appeal on image data. In this work, we propose an actionable methodology to evaluate what kinds of explanations a given method can and cannot provide. We find that reliance, solely, on visual assessment can be misleading. Through extensive experiments we show that some existing saliency methods are independent both of the model and of the data generating process. Consequently, methods that fail the proposed tests are inadequate for tasks that are sensitive to either data or model, such as, finding outliers in the data, explaining the relationship between inputs and outputs that the model learned, and debugging the model. We interpret our findings through an analogy with edge detection in images, a technique that requires neither training data nor model. Theory in the case of a linear model and a single-layer convolutional neural network supports our experimental findings.

Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps

/pdf/sanity-checks-for-saliency-maps-3ey84anffy.pdf

Example-based explanations are widely used in the effort to improve the interpretability of highly complex distributions. However, prototypes alone are rarely sufficient to represent the gist of the complexity. In order for users to construct better mental models and understand complex data distributions, we also need {\em criticism} to explain what are \textit{not} captured by prototypes. Motivated by the Bayesian model criticism framework, we develop \texttt{MMD-critic} which efficiently learns prototypes and criticism, designed to aid human interpretability. A human subject pilot study shows that the \texttt{MMD-critic} selects prototypes and criticism that are useful to facilitate human understanding and reasoning. We also evaluate the prototypes selected by \texttt{MMD-critic} via a nearest prototype classifier, showing competitive performance compared to baselines.

/pdf/examples-are-not-enough-learn-to-criticize-criticism-for-4hfwtbpfwg.pdf

Been Kim

Papers

Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning

SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise

Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps

Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps

Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! Criticism for Interpretability