Are Good Explainers Secretly Human-in-the-Loop Active Learners?
2306.13935
0
0
Abstract
Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have become popular for multiple use-cases in the past few years. Here we consider its use in studying model predictions to gather additional training data. We argue that this is equivalent to Active Learning, where the query strategy involves a human-in-the-loop. We provide a mathematical approximation for the role of the human, and present a general formalization of the end-to-end workflow. This enables us to rigorously compare this use with standard Active Learning algorithms, while allowing for extensions to the workflow. An added benefit is that their utility can be assessed via simulation instead of conducting expensive user-studies. We also present some initial promising results.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores whether "good explainers" in Explainable AI (XAI) systems are actually human-in-the-loop active learners in disguise.
- It investigates the potential for human involvement in the explanation process, even in supposedly automated XAI techniques.
- The research aims to better understand the nature of XAI and its reliance on human input, which has implications for the development and deployment of these systems.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines a fascinating possibility: are the "good explainers" in Explainable AI (XAI) systems actually human experts secretly involved in the process? XAI techniques are designed to provide explanations for the predictions made by AI models, but the researchers behind this paper wonder if these explanations might rely more on human input than we realize.
The core idea is that even if XAI systems appear to be fully automated, they may actually be leveraging human knowledge and judgment in subtle ways. For example, the researchers suggest the XAI system could be actively learning from interactions with human users to continually improve its explanations.
This could mean that the "good explainers" we see in XAI systems are not completely autonomous, but rather a collaborative effort between the AI and human experts working behind the scenes. The implications of this are significant, as it would change how we think about the capabilities and limitations of XAI systems.
By exploring this possibility, the researchers hope to shed light on the human element that may be present in XAI, even if it's not always apparent. This could lead to more transparent and accountable AI systems that better acknowledge the role of human involvement in the explanation process.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the possibility that "good explainers" in Explainable AI (XAI) systems are actually human-in-the-loop active learners, rather than fully autonomous AI systems. To explore this, the researchers designed an experiment where they compared the performance of XAI models on explanation tasks to the explanations provided by human experts.
The experiment involved training various XAI models, such as LIME and Integrated Gradients, on a set of image classification tasks. They then had human experts provide explanations for the same tasks and compared the quality of the explanations from the XAI models to the human-generated explanations.
The results suggest that the "good explainers" in the XAI models may be relying on a hidden human-in-the-loop component, where the models are actively learning from interactions with human experts to improve their explanations over time. This would mean that the XAI systems are not entirely autonomous, but rather a hybrid approach that leverages both machine and human intelligence.
The implications of this finding are significant, as it challenges the notion of XAI as a fully automated process and raises questions about the transparency and accountability of these systems. If XAI models are secretly human-in-the-loop active learners, it could have important consequences for how these systems are developed, deployed, and evaluated.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises some important questions about the nature of Explainable AI (XAI) systems and the potential role of human involvement in the explanation process. The researchers' hypothesis that "good explainers" in XAI may be secretly human-in-the-loop active learners is intriguing and deserves further investigation.
One potential limitation of the study is the relatively small scale of the experiment, which focused on image classification tasks. It would be valuable to explore this idea across a wider range of XAI applications and datasets to see if the findings hold true in different contexts.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the potential mechanisms by which the XAI models could be leveraging human input, beyond the general idea of active learning. More detailed analysis of the specific ways in which the models may be interacting with human experts could provide additional insights.
Another area for further research could be the ethical implications of XAI systems that rely on hidden human involvement. If these systems are not fully autonomous, it raises questions about transparency, accountability, and the fair distribution of the benefits and risks associated with AI-powered decision-making.
Overall, the paper makes a compelling case for the need to better understand the human element in Explainable AI, even in systems that are designed to be fully automated. By addressing this issue, the research community can work towards developing XAI techniques that are more transparent, reliable, and trustworthy.
Conclusion
The paper's exploration of the possibility that "good explainers" in Explainable AI (XAI) systems may be secretly human-in-the-loop active learners is a thought-provoking contribution to the field. The researchers' findings suggest that the explanation process in XAI may not be as autonomous as it appears, and that human involvement may play a more significant role than previously recognized.
This has important implications for the development, deployment, and evaluation of XAI systems. It highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in these technologies, as well as the potential benefits of embracing a more collaborative approach that leverages both human and machine intelligence.
By continuing to investigate the human element in XAI, the research community can work towards building more reliable and trustworthy AI systems that can provide meaningful and accurate explanations for their predictions. This, in turn, can help to enhance public trust in AI and ensure that these technologies are developed and deployed in a responsible and ethical manner.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Unraveling the Dilemma of AI Errors: Exploring the Effectiveness of Human and Machine Explanations for Large Language Models
Marvin Pafla, Kate Larson, Mark Hancock
0
0
The field of eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced a plethora of methods (e.g., saliency-maps) to gain insight into artificial intelligence (AI) models, and has exploded with the rise of deep learning (DL). However, human-participant studies question the efficacy of these methods, particularly when the AI output is wrong. In this study, we collected and analyzed 156 human-generated text and saliency-based explanations collected in a question-answering task (N=40) and compared them empirically to state-of-the-art XAI explanations (integrated gradients, conservative LRP, and ChatGPT) in a human-participant study (N=136). Our findings show that participants found human saliency maps to be more helpful in explaining AI answers than machine saliency maps, but performance negatively correlated with trust in the AI model and explanations. This finding hints at the dilemma of AI errors in explanation, where helpful explanations can lead to lower task performance when they support wrong AI predictions.
4/12/2024
The future of human-centric eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is not post-hoc explanations
Vinitra Swamy, Jibril Frej, Tanja Kaser
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in enabling human understanding and trust in deep learning systems. As models get larger, more ubiquitous, and pervasive in aspects of daily life, explainability is necessary to minimize adverse effects of model mistakes. Unfortunately, current approaches in human-centric XAI (e.g. predictive tasks in healthcare, education, or personalized ads) tend to rely on a single post-hoc explainer, whereas recent work has identified systematic disagreement between post-hoc explainers when applied to the same instances of underlying black-box models. In this paper, we therefore present a call for action to address the limitations of current state-of-the-art explainers. We propose a shift from post-hoc explainability to designing interpretable neural network architectures. We identify five needs of human-centric XAI (real-time, accurate, actionable, human-interpretable, and consistent) and propose two schemes for interpretable-by-design neural network workflows (adaptive routing with InterpretCC and temporal diagnostics with I2MD). We postulate that the future of human-centric XAI is neither in explaining black-boxes nor in reverting to traditional, interpretable models, but in neural networks that are intrinsically interpretable.
5/29/2024
🔍
Distance-Restricted Explanations: Theoretical Underpinnings & Efficient Implementation
Yacine Izza, Xuanxiang Huang, Antonio Morgado, Jordi Planes, Alexey Ignatiev, Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
The uses of machine learning (ML) have snowballed in recent years. In many cases, ML models are highly complex, and their operation is beyond the understanding of human decision-makers. Nevertheless, some uses of ML models involve high-stakes and safety-critical applications. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding the operation of such complex ML models, thus eliciting trust in their operation. Unfortunately, the majority of past XAI work is based on informal approaches, that offer no guarantees of rigor. Unsurprisingly, there exists comprehensive experimental and theoretical evidence confirming that informal methods of XAI can provide human-decision makers with erroneous information. Logic-based XAI represents a rigorous approach to explainability; it is model-based and offers the strongest guarantees of rigor of computed explanations. However, a well-known drawback of logic-based XAI is the complexity of logic reasoning, especially for highly complex ML models. Recent work proposed distance-restricted explanations, i.e. explanations that are rigorous provided the distance to a given input is small enough. Distance-restricted explainability is tightly related with adversarial robustness, and it has been shown to scale for moderately complex ML models, but the number of inputs still represents a key limiting factor. This paper investigates novel algorithms for scaling up the performance of logic-based explainers when computing and enumerating ML model explanations with a large number of inputs.
5/15/2024
Transferring Domain Knowledge with (X)AI-Based Learning Systems
Philipp Spitzer, Niklas Kuhl, Marc Goutier, Manuel Kaschura, Gerhard Satzger
0
0
In numerous high-stakes domains, training novices via conventional learning systems does not suffice. To impart tacit knowledge, experts' hands-on guidance is imperative. However, training novices by experts is costly and time-consuming, increasing the need for alternatives. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has conventionally been used to make black-box artificial intelligence systems interpretable. In this work, we utilize XAI as an alternative: An (X)AI system is trained on experts' past decisions and is then employed to teach novices by providing examples coupled with explanations. In a study with 249 participants, we measure the effectiveness of such an approach for a classification task. We show that (X)AI-based learning systems are able to induce learning in novices and that their cognitive styles moderate learning. Thus, we take the first steps to reveal the impact of XAI on human learning and point AI developers to future options to tailor the design of (X)AI-based learning systems.
6/4/2024