Beyond Model Interpretability: Socio-Structural Explanations in Machine Learning
0
๐
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines the limitations of current approaches to model interpretability in machine learning
- Proposes a socio-structural perspective to explain machine learning models and their impacts
- Highlights the need to consider social, historical, and institutional contexts in model development and deployment
Plain English Explanation
The paper argues that the dominant focus on model interpretability in machine learning is insufficient. While understanding how a model works is important, the authors suggest we need to go beyond this and consider the socio-structural factors that shape the development and deployment of these models.
The paper emphasizes that machine learning models don't exist in a vacuum - they are shaped by the social, historical, and institutional contexts in which they are created and used. For example, the data used to train a model may reflect existing biases and inequalities in society. Similarly, the intended use of a model can have significant societal impacts that need to be considered.
By taking a socio-structural perspective, the authors argue we can better understand the broader implications of machine learning and develop more responsible and ethical AI systems. This involves not just examining the technical details of a model, but also considering the social, political, and historical context in which it is situated.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by critiquing the current emphasis on model interpretability in machine learning. While understanding how a model makes decisions is important, the authors argue that this approach is limited in its ability to capture the complex socio-structural factors that shape the development and deployment of these models.
To address this, the authors propose a socio-structural perspective on machine learning. This involves considering the social, historical, and institutional contexts that influence the data, algorithms, and intended uses of a model. The paper discusses several key elements of this approach:
-
Data and Bias: The data used to train a model may reflect existing biases and inequalities in society, which can then be amplified by the model.
-
Algorithmic Fairness: The design of machine learning algorithms can have significant implications for fairness and equity, particularly for marginalized groups.
-
Institutional Dynamics: The organizational and institutional contexts in which machine learning models are developed and deployed can shape their design and use in important ways.
By considering these socio-structural factors, the authors argue that we can better understand the broader implications of machine learning and develop more responsible and ethical AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper's critique of the current focus on model interpretability is compelling. While understanding how a model works is important, the authors rightly point out that this approach can neglect the complex social, historical, and institutional factors that shape the development and deployment of these systems.
One strength of the paper is its emphasis on data bias and algorithmic fairness. The authors highlight how the data used to train machine learning models can reflect and amplify existing inequalities, and how the design of algorithms can have significant implications for fairness and equity. These are crucial issues that deserve more attention in the field of AI development and deployment.
However, the paper could have gone further in exploring the specific mechanisms by which these socio-structural factors influence machine learning. While the authors provide a high-level framework, more detailed case studies or examples would have been helpful to illustrate their claims.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the practical challenges of incorporating socio-structural considerations into the machine learning development process. Addressing these challenges would be a valuable area for future research and discussion.
Conclusion
This paper makes a compelling case for the need to move beyond a narrow focus on model interpretability in machine learning. By adopting a socio-structural perspective, the authors demonstrate the importance of considering the broader social, historical, and institutional contexts that shape the development and deployment of these systems.
Ultimately, the paper argues that a more holistic approach to understanding machine learning is necessary to develop responsible and ethical AI that truly serves the needs of all members of society. This is a timely and important contribution to the ongoing discussion around the societal impacts of artificial intelligence.
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
๐
0
Beyond Model Interpretability: Socio-Structural Explanations in Machine Learning
Andrew Smart, Atoosa Kasirzadeh
What is it to interpret the outputs of an opaque machine learning model. One approach is to develop interpretable machine learning techniques. These techniques aim to show how machine learning models function by providing either model centric local or global explanations, which can be based on mechanistic interpretations revealing the inner working mechanisms of models or nonmechanistic approximations showing input feature output data relationships. In this paper, we draw on social philosophy to argue that interpreting machine learning outputs in certain normatively salient domains could require appealing to a third type of explanation that we call sociostructural explanation. The relevance of this explanation type is motivated by the fact that machine learning models are not isolated entities but are embedded within and shaped by social structures. Sociostructural explanations aim to illustrate how social structures contribute to and partially explain the outputs of machine learning models. We demonstrate the importance of sociostructural explanations by examining a racially biased healthcare allocation algorithm. Our proposal highlights the need for transparency beyond model interpretability, understanding the outputs of machine learning systems could require a broader analysis that extends beyond the understanding of the machine learning model itself.
Read more9/6/2024
0
Hard to Explain: On the Computational Hardness of In-Distribution Model Interpretation
Guy Amir, Shahaf Bassan, Guy Katz
The ability to interpret Machine Learning (ML) models is becoming increasingly essential. However, despite significant progress in the field, there remains a lack of rigorous characterization regarding the innate interpretability of different models. In an attempt to bridge this gap, recent work has demonstrated that it is possible to formally assess interpretability by studying the computational complexity of explaining the decisions of various models. In this setting, if explanations for a particular model can be obtained efficiently, the model is considered interpretable (since it can be explained ``easily''). However, if generating explanations over an ML model is computationally intractable, it is considered uninterpretable. Prior research identified two key factors that influence the complexity of interpreting an ML model: (i) the type of the model (e.g., neural networks, decision trees, etc.); and (ii) the form of explanation (e.g., contrastive explanations, Shapley values, etc.). In this work, we claim that a third, important factor must also be considered for this analysis -- the underlying distribution over which the explanation is obtained. Considering the underlying distribution is key in avoiding explanations that are socially misaligned, i.e., convey information that is biased and unhelpful to users. We demonstrate the significant influence of the underlying distribution on the resulting overall interpretation complexity, in two settings: (i) prediction models paired with an external out-of-distribution (OOD) detector; and (ii) prediction models designed to inherently generate socially aligned explanations. Our findings prove that the expressiveness of the distribution can significantly influence the overall complexity of interpretation, and identify essential prerequisites that a model must possess to generate socially aligned explanations.
Read more8/9/2024
๐งช
0
Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations
Juan D. Pinto, Luc Paquette
The challenge of creating interpretable models has been taken up by two main research communities: ML researchers primarily focused on lower-level explainability methods that suit the needs of engineers, and HCI researchers who have more heavily emphasized user-centered approaches often based on participatory design methods. This paper reviews how these communities have evaluated interpretability, identifying overlaps and semantic misalignments. We propose moving towards a unified framework of evaluation criteria and lay the groundwork for such a framework by articulating the relationships between existing criteria. We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models analyzed via post-hoc techniques. We further argue that useful explanations require both faithfulness and intelligibility. Explanation plausibility is a prerequisite for intelligibility, while stability is a prerequisite for explanation faithfulness. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
Read more7/16/2024
๐ผ๏ธ
0
On the Relationship Between Interpretability and Explainability in Machine Learning
Benjamin Leblanc, Pascal Germain
Interpretability and explainability have gained more and more attention in the field of machine learning as they are crucial when it comes to high-stakes decisions and troubleshooting. Since both provide information about predictors and their decision process, they are often seen as two independent means for one single end. This view has led to a dichotomous literature: explainability techniques designed for complex black-box models, or interpretable approaches ignoring the many explainability tools. In this position paper, we challenge the common idea that interpretability and explainability are substitutes for one another by listing their principal shortcomings and discussing how both of them mitigate the drawbacks of the other. In doing so, we call for a new perspective on interpretability and explainability, and works targeting both topics simultaneously, leveraging each of their respective assets.
Read more4/26/2024