Interpretability Needs a New Paradigm
2405.05386
0
0
📊
Abstract
Interpretability is the study of explaining models in understandable terms to humans. At present, interpretability is divided into two paradigms: the intrinsic paradigm, which believes that only models designed to be explained can be explained, and the post-hoc paradigm, which believes that black-box models can be explained. At the core of this debate is how each paradigm ensures its explanations are faithful, i.e., true to the model's behavior. This is important, as false but convincing explanations lead to unsupported confidence in artificial intelligence (AI), which can be dangerous. This paper's position is that we should think about new paradigms while staying vigilant regarding faithfulness. First, by examining the history of paradigms in science, we see that paradigms are constantly evolving. Then, by examining the current paradigms, we can understand their underlying beliefs, the value they bring, and their limitations. Finally, this paper presents 3 emerging paradigms for interpretability. The first paradigm designs models such that faithfulness can be easily measured. Another optimizes models such that explanations become faithful. The last paradigm proposes to develop models that produce both a prediction and an explanation.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Calls for a new paradigm in interpretability and explainability for machine learning models
- Argues that current approaches like post-hoc explanations and intrinsic interpretability have significant limitations
- Proposes a shift towards "self-explaining" models that are inherently transparent and faithful to their inner workings
Plain English Explanation
As machine learning models become more complex and powerful, the need for interpretability and explainability has become increasingly important. Interpretability refers to the ability to understand how a model works and why it makes the decisions it does, while explainability involves providing clear explanations for those decisions.
The paper argues that the current approaches to interpretability, such as post-hoc explanations (where explanations are generated after the model has made a decision) and intrinsic interpretability (where the model is designed to be inherently interpretable), have significant limitations. Post-hoc explanations may not accurately reflect the model's actual decision-making process, while intrinsic interpretability can come at the cost of model performance.
To address these issues, the paper proposes a shift towards a new paradigm of "self-explaining" models. These models would be designed to be inherently transparent, with their inner workings and decision-making processes clearly visible and understandable. This could involve using techniques like symbolic regression or thermodynamics-inspired explanations to create models that are both accurate and interpretable.
The key idea is to move away from trying to "explain" a black-box model after the fact and instead focus on developing models that are inherently interpretable and faithful to their underlying mechanisms. This could lead to a better understanding of how these models work, which could in turn lead to improved model performance, increased trust in the technology, and better alignment with ethical principles.
Technical Explanation
The paper argues that the current state of interpretability and explainability in machine learning is inadequate and calls for a new paradigm. It identifies two main approaches to interpretability: post-hoc explanations and intrinsic interpretability.
Post-hoc explanations involve generating explanations for a model's decisions after the fact, often using techniques like LIME or SHAP. The paper argues that these explanations may not accurately reflect the model's actual decision-making process and can be unfaithful to the model's inner workings.
Intrinsic interpretability, on the other hand, involves designing models that are inherently interpretable, such as decision trees or linear models. While these models can provide clear explanations, the paper suggests that this can come at the cost of model performance.
To address these limitations, the paper proposes a shift towards "self-explaining" models. These models would be designed to be inherently transparent, with their inner workings and decision-making processes clearly visible and understandable. The paper suggests that this could involve techniques like symbolic regression or thermodynamics-inspired explanations, which aim to create models that are both accurate and interpretable.
The key idea is to move away from trying to "explain" a black-box model after the fact and instead focus on developing models that are inherently interpretable and faithful to their underlying mechanisms. This could lead to a better understanding of how these models work, which could in turn lead to improved model performance, increased trust in the technology, and better alignment with ethical principles.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the limitations of current approaches to interpretability and explainability in machine learning. Post-hoc explanations may indeed be unfaithful to the model's actual decision-making process, while intrinsic interpretability can come at the cost of model performance.
The proposal for "self-explaining" models is an intriguing idea that could help address these issues. By designing models that are inherently transparent and faithful to their underlying mechanisms, it may be possible to create interpretable and explainable AI systems that maintain high levels of performance.
However, the paper does not provide a detailed roadmap for how to achieve this shift in paradigm. Techniques like symbolic regression and thermodynamics-inspired explanations are promising, but the paper does not delve into the practical challenges of implementing these approaches or how they can be scaled to more complex machine learning models.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential trade-offs or tensions that may arise between interpretability, explainability, and other desirable model properties, such as accuracy, robustness, or generalization. Further research and experimentation will be needed to fully understand the implications and limitations of this proposed paradigm shift.
Overall, the paper raises important questions and highlights the need for a new approach to interpretability and explainability in machine learning. While the proposed direction is promising, more work is needed to translate this vision into practical, scalable solutions that can be effectively deployed in real-world applications.
Conclusion
The paper calls for a new paradigm in interpretability and explainability for machine learning models, arguing that current approaches like post-hoc explanations and intrinsic interpretability have significant limitations. The authors propose a shift towards "self-explaining" models that are inherently transparent and faithful to their inner workings, which could lead to improved model performance, increased trust in the technology, and better alignment with ethical principles.
While the proposed direction is promising, the paper does not provide a detailed roadmap for how to achieve this shift in paradigm. Further research and experimentation will be needed to translate this vision into practical, scalable solutions that can be effectively deployed in real-world applications. Nonetheless, the paper raises important questions and highlights the continued need for advancements in interpretability and explainability in the field of machine learning.
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
🧪
Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations
Juan D. Pinto, Luc Paquette
0
0
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.
5/24/2024
🖼️
On the Relationship Between Interpretability and Explainability in Machine Learning
Benjamin Leblanc, Pascal Germain
0
0
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.
4/26/2024
👁️
Interpretable Representations in Explainable AI: From Theory to Practice
Kacper Sokol, Peter Flach
0
0
Interpretable representations are the backbone of many explainers that target black-box predictive systems based on artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. They translate the low-level data representation necessary for good predictive performance into high-level human-intelligible concepts used to convey the explanatory insights. Notably, the explanation type and its cognitive complexity are directly controlled by the interpretable representation, tweaking which allows to target a particular audience and use case. However, many explainers built upon interpretable representations overlook their merit and fall back on default solutions that often carry implicit assumptions, thereby degrading the explanatory power and reliability of such techniques. To address this problem, we study properties of interpretable representations that encode presence and absence of human-comprehensible concepts. We demonstrate how they are operationalised for tabular, image and text data; discuss their assumptions, strengths and weaknesses; identify their core building blocks; and scrutinise their configuration and parameterisation. In particular, this in-depth analysis allows us to pinpoint their explanatory properties, desiderata and scope for (malicious) manipulation in the context of tabular data where a linear model is used to quantify the influence of interpretable concepts on a black-box prediction. Our findings lead to a range of recommendations for designing trustworthy interpretable representations; specifically, the benefits of class-aware (supervised) discretisation of tabular data, e.g., with decision trees, and sensitivity of image interpretable representations to segmentation granularity and occlusion colour.
4/29/2024
Data Science Principles for Interpretable and Explainable AI
Kris Sankaran
0
0
Society's capacity for algorithmic problem-solving has never been greater. Artificial Intelligence is now applied across more domains than ever, a consequence of powerful abstractions, abundant data, and accessible software. As capabilities have expanded, so have risks, with models often deployed without fully understanding their potential impacts. Interpretable and interactive machine learning aims to make complex models more transparent and controllable, enhancing user agency. This review synthesizes key principles from the growing literature in this field. We first introduce precise vocabulary for discussing interpretability, like the distinction between glass box and explainable algorithms. We then explore connections to classical statistical and design principles, like parsimony and the gulfs of interaction. Basic explainability techniques -- including learned embeddings, integrated gradients, and concept bottlenecks -- are illustrated with a simple case study. We also review criteria for objectively evaluating interpretability approaches. Throughout, we underscore the importance of considering audience goals when designing interactive algorithmic systems. Finally, we outline open challenges and discuss the potential role of data science in addressing them. Code to reproduce all examples can be found at https://go.wisc.edu/3k1ewe.
5/20/2024