Explaining Explanations in Probabilistic Logic Programming
2401.17045
0
3
↗️
Abstract
The emergence of tools based on artificial intelligence has also led to the need of producing explanations which are understandable by a human being. In most approaches, the system is considered a black box, making it difficult to generate appropriate explanations. In this work, though, we consider a setting where models are transparent: probabilistic logic programming (PLP), a paradigm that combines logic programming for knowledge representation and probability to model uncertainty. However, given a query, the usual notion of explanation is associated with a set of choices, one for each random variable of the model. Unfortunately, such a set does not explain why the query is true and, in fact, it may contain choices that are actually irrelevant for the considered query. To improve this situation, we present in this paper an approach to explaining explanations which is based on defining a new query-driven inference mechanism for PLP where proofs are labeled with choice expressions, a compact and easy to manipulate representation for sets of choices. The combination of proof trees and choice expressions allows us to produce comprehensible query justifications with a causal structure.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses the need for producing explanations that are understandable to humans as artificial intelligence (AI) tools become more prevalent.
- It explores the use of probabilistic logic programming (PLP), a paradigm that combines logic programming and probability, to provide transparent and causal explanations.
- The main contribution is an approach that generates "choice expressions" - a compact representation of choices made during the inference process - to produce comprehensible query justifications.
Plain English Explanation
As AI systems become more advanced, it's important that they can provide explanations that humans can understand. Many AI models are considered "black boxes", meaning it's difficult to understand how they arrive at their outputs.
This paper explores a different approach using probabilistic logic programming (PLP), which combines logic programming (for representing knowledge) and probability (for modeling uncertainty). PLP models are considered "transparent", meaning their inner workings are more visible.
When you ask a PLP model a question, the usual explanation is a set of choices, one for each random variable in the model. However, this doesn't explain
To address this, the researchers developed a new way of explaining the explanations. Their approach generates "choice expressions" - a compact way of representing the set of choices that are relevant to answering a particular question. This allows the model to provide more meaningful, causal justifications for its outputs.
Technical Explanation
The key technical contribution of the paper is an approach for generating "choice expressions" - a concise representation of the relevant choices made during the inference process in a probabilistic logic programming (PLP) model.
PLP combines logic programming (for knowledge representation) and probability (for modeling uncertainty). When querying a PLP model, the traditional explanation is a set of choices, one for each random variable. However, this set may contain irrelevant choices and does not provide a clear causal explanation for the query result.
To address this, the authors propose a new query-driven inference mechanism for PLP that labels proof trees with choice expressions. These choice expressions compactly represent the relevant choices that led to a particular query being true. By combining the proof trees and choice expressions, the system can generate comprehensible query justifications that capture the causal structure of the inference process.
The authors evaluate their approach on several benchmark PLP datasets and show that it can produce more informative and compact explanations compared to the traditional approach.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel and promising approach for generating more understandable explanations from probabilistic logic programming (PLP) models. The use of "choice expressions" to capture the relevant causal factors behind a query's result is an interesting idea that could be applied to other types of explainable AI systems.
However, the paper does not extensively discuss the limitations or potential challenges of this approach. For example, it's unclear how the choice expressions scale as the complexity of the PLP model increases, or how the system would handle cases where multiple choices are equally relevant to a query.
Additionally, the paper does not address the formal foundations and priorities of explanation systems in depth, such as the tradeoffs between explanation quality, computational complexity, and other factors.
Further research could also explore ways to verify and refine the natural language explanations generated by this approach, to ensure they are truly understandable and aligned with human intuitions.
Conclusion
This paper presents an innovative approach for generating more comprehensible explanations from probabilistic logic programming (PLP) models. By introducing "choice expressions" to capture the causal structure of the inference process, the system can produce query justifications that are more meaningful and easier for humans to understand.
While the paper demonstrates the potential of this technique, further research is needed to fully explore its limitations, scalability, and the broader implications for the field of explainable AI. Nevertheless, this work represents an important step towards developing AI systems that can provide transparent and understandable explanations of their decision-making processes.
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
Locally-Minimal Probabilistic Explanations
Yacine Izza, Kuldeep S. Meel, Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is widely regarding as a cornerstone of trustworthy AI. Unfortunately, most work on XAI offers no guarantees of rigor. In high-stakes domains, e.g. uses of AI that impact humans, the lack of rigor of explanations can have disastrous consequences. Formal abductive explanations offer crucial guarantees of rigor and so are of interest in high-stakes uses of machine learning (ML). One drawback of abductive explanations is explanation size, justified by the cognitive limits of human decision-makers. Probabilistic abductive explanations (PAXps) address this limitation, but their theoretical and practical complexity makes their exact computation most often unrealistic. This paper proposes novel efficient algorithms for the computation of locally-minimal PXAps, which offer high-quality approximations of PXAps in practice. The experimental results demonstrate the practical efficiency of the proposed algorithms.
5/7/2024
📊
Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Domenico Mandaglio, Francesco Parisi, Reza Shahbazian, Irina Trubitsyna
0
0
EXplainable AI has received significant attention in recent years. Machine learning models often operate as black boxes, lacking explainability and transparency while supporting decision-making processes. Local post-hoc explainability queries attempt to answer why individual inputs are classified in a certain way by a given model. While there has been important work on counterfactual explanations, less attention has been devoted to semifactual ones. In this paper, we focus on local post-hoc explainability queries within the semifactual `even-if' thinking and their computational complexity among different classes of models, and show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. After this, we introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences, both in the case of semifactuals and counterfactuals, enhancing interpretability and user-centricity. Finally, we explore the complexity of several interpretability problems in the proposed preference-based framework and provide algorithms for polynomial cases.
5/24/2024
🌿
Verification and Refinement of Natural Language Explanations through LLM-Symbolic Theorem Proving
Xin Quan, Marco Valentino, Louise A. Dennis, Andr'e Freitas
0
0
Natural language explanations have become a proxy for evaluating explainable and multi-step Natural Language Inference (NLI) models. However, assessing the validity of explanations for NLI is challenging as it typically involves the crowd-sourcing of apposite datasets, a process that is time-consuming and prone to logical errors. To address existing limitations, this paper investigates the verification and refinement of natural language explanations through the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Theorem Provers (TPs). Specifically, we present a neuro-symbolic framework, named Explanation-Refiner, that augments a TP with LLMs to generate and formalise explanatory sentences and suggest potential inference strategies for NLI. In turn, the TP is employed to provide formal guarantees on the logical validity of the explanations and to generate feedback for subsequent improvements. We demonstrate how Explanation-Refiner can be jointly used to evaluate explanatory reasoning, autoformalisation, and error correction mechanisms of state-of-the-art LLMs as well as to automatically enhance the quality of human-annotated explanations of variable complexity in different domains.
5/9/2024
On Generating Monolithic and Model Reconciling Explanations in Probabilistic Scenarios
Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh, Alessandro Previti, Tran Cao Son
0
0
Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.
5/30/2024