Explainable AI needs formal notions of explanation correctness
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper argues that explainable AI (XAI) needs formal notions of explanation correctness to be truly effective.
- It discusses the purported purposes of XAI and proposes that explanations should be evaluated based on formal criteria.
- The technical explanation covers the key elements of the paper, including the proposed framework for assessing explanation correctness.
- The critical analysis examines the paper's limitations and areas for further research.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses the need for clear, formal standards to evaluate the explanations provided by AI systems. Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make AI systems more transparent and understandable, but the authors argue that without formal criteria for what constitutes a "correct" explanation, XAI efforts may fall short.
The authors propose that explanations should be assessed based on formal, mathematical notions of correctness. This would involve defining precise requirements for what makes an explanation accurate, complete, and useful. For example, an explanation might need to accurately reflect the key factors that influenced an AI's decision, provide a level of detail appropriate to the user's needs, and avoid misleading or irrelevant information.
By establishing formal standards for explanation correctness, the authors believe XAI systems can be held to a higher bar and become more reliable and trustworthy. This could be particularly important as AI becomes more widely used in high-stakes domains like healthcare or finance, where the ability to understand and scrutinize AI decisions is crucial.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a framework for formally defining and evaluating the correctness of XAI explanations. The authors argue that current XAI techniques often lack rigorous criteria for what constitutes a "good" explanation, leading to explanations that may be misleading or incomplete.
The proposed framework defines several formal properties that explanations should satisfy, including:
- Accuracy: The explanation accurately reflects the true decision-making process of the AI system.
- Relevance: The explanation focuses on the most important factors influencing the AI's decision.
- Completeness: The explanation provides sufficient detail to fully understand the AI's reasoning.
- Coherence: The explanation is logically consistent and free of contradictions.
The authors also discuss the challenges of defining these properties formally, such as the need to account for different user preferences and the difficulty of precisely measuring explanation quality. They propose several mathematical techniques, such as the use of Shapley values and information theory, to operationalize these formal notions of explanation correctness.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the need to establish formal criteria for evaluating XAI explanations. As the authors note, many current XAI techniques produce explanations that may be misleading or incomplete, undermining the trust and usefulness of these systems.
However, the authors acknowledge that defining formal notions of explanation correctness is a complex challenge. Different users may have different preferences and needs when it comes to explanations, and it may be difficult to precisely measure the quality of an explanation. The authors' proposed framework is a valuable starting point, but further research and refinement will likely be needed to make it truly practical and widely applicable.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential ethical and privacy implications of XAI systems, such as the risk of explanations revealing sensitive information about individuals or reinforcing biases. These are important considerations that should be further explored as the field of XAI continues to develop.
Conclusion
This paper makes a strong case for the importance of formal notions of explanation correctness in the field of explainable AI (XAI). By establishing clear, rigorous criteria for what constitutes a "good" explanation, the authors argue that XAI systems can become more reliable, trustworthy, and useful, particularly in high-stakes domains.
While the proposed framework is a valuable starting point, the authors acknowledge the significant challenges involved in defining and measuring explanation correctness. Continued research and refinement will be needed to make this approach practical and widely applicable. Additionally, the paper could have explored the ethical and privacy implications of XAI in more depth.
Overall, this paper highlights the crucial need for XAI systems to be held to high standards of explanation quality, and provides a thought-provoking framework for how this might be achieved.
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
0
Explainable AI needs formal notions of explanation correctness
Stefan Haufe, Rick Wilming, Benedict Clark, Rustam Zhumagambetov, Danny Panknin, Ahc`ene Boubekki
The use of machine learning (ML) in critical domains such as medicine poses risks and requires regulation. One requirement is that decisions of ML systems in high-risk applications should be human-understandable. The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) seemingly addresses this need. However, in its current form, XAI is unfit to provide quality control for ML; it itself needs scrutiny. Popular XAI methods cannot reliably answer important questions about ML models, their training data, or a given test input. We recapitulate results demonstrating that popular XAI methods systematically attribute importance to input features that are independent of the prediction target. This limits their utility for purposes such as model and data (in)validation, model improvement, and scientific discovery. We argue that the fundamental reason for this limitation is that current XAI methods do not address well-defined problems and are not evaluated against objective criteria of explanation correctness. Researchers should formally define the problems they intend to solve first and then design methods accordingly. This will lead to notions of explanation correctness that can be theoretically verified and objective metrics of explanation performance that can be assessed using ground-truth data.
Read more9/27/2024
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Needs, Techniques, Applications, and Future Direction
Melkamu Mersha, Khang Lam, Joseph Wood, Ali AlShami, Jugal Kalita
Artificial intelligence models encounter significant challenges due to their black-box nature, particularly in safety-critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous vehicles. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) addresses these challenges by providing explanations for how these models make decisions and predictions, ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness. Existing studies have examined the fundamental concepts of XAI, its general principles, and the scope of XAI techniques. However, there remains a gap in the literature as there are no comprehensive reviews that delve into the detailed mathematical representations, design methodologies of XAI models, and other associated aspects. This paper provides a comprehensive literature review encompassing common terminologies and definitions, the need for XAI, beneficiaries of XAI, a taxonomy of XAI methods, and the application of XAI methods in different application areas. The survey is aimed at XAI researchers, XAI practitioners, AI model developers, and XAI beneficiaries who are interested in enhancing the trustworthiness, transparency, accountability, and fairness of their AI models.
Read more9/4/2024
🔍
0
Distance-Restricted Explanations: Theoretical Underpinnings & Efficient Implementation
Yacine Izza, Xuanxiang Huang, Antonio Morgado, Jordi Planes, Alexey Ignatiev, Joao Marques-Silva
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.
Read more5/15/2024
0
Privacy Implications of Explainable AI in Data-Driven Systems
Fatima Ezzeddine
Machine learning (ML) models, demonstrably powerful, suffer from a lack of interpretability. The absence of transparency, often referred to as the black box nature of ML models, undermines trust and urges the need for efforts to enhance their explainability. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques address this challenge by providing frameworks and methods to explain the internal decision-making processes of these complex models. Techniques like Counterfactual Explanations (CF) and Feature Importance play a crucial role in achieving this goal. Furthermore, high-quality and diverse data remains the foundational element for robust and trustworthy ML applications. In many applications, the data used to train ML and XAI explainers contain sensitive information. In this context, numerous privacy-preserving techniques can be employed to safeguard sensitive information in the data, such as differential privacy. Subsequently, a conflict between XAI and privacy solutions emerges due to their opposing goals. Since XAI techniques provide reasoning for the model behavior, they reveal information relative to ML models, such as their decision boundaries, the values of features, or the gradients of deep learning models when explanations are exposed to a third entity. Attackers can initiate privacy breaching attacks using these explanations, to perform model extraction, inference, and membership attacks. This dilemma underscores the challenge of finding the right equilibrium between understanding ML decision-making and safeguarding privacy.
Read more6/26/2024