Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Future
2406.11873
0
0
🤔
Abstract
In recent years, the impact of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in society has been absolutely remarkable. This impact is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. However,the adoption of AI/ML is also a cause of grave concern. The operation of the most advances AI/ML models is often beyond the grasp of human decision makers. As a result, decisions that impact humans may not be understood and may lack rigorous validation. Explainable AI (XAI) is concerned with providing human decision-makers with understandable explanations for the predictions made by ML models. As a result, XAI is a cornerstone of trustworthy AI. Despite its strategic importance, most work on XAI lacks rigor, and so its use in high-risk or safety-critical domains serves to foster distrust instead of contributing to build much-needed trust. Logic-based XAI has recently emerged as a rigorous alternative to those other non-rigorous methods of XAI. This paper provides a technical survey of logic-based XAI, its origins, the current topics of research, and emerging future topics of research. The paper also highlights the many myths that pervade non-rigorous approaches for XAI.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the field of logic-based explainability, which focuses on using logical reasoning to explain the decisions and outputs of AI systems.
- The paper traces the history of logic-based explainability, discusses the current state of the field, and explores future directions and challenges.
- Key topics covered include the theoretical underpinnings of logic-based explainability, efficient implementation approaches, the role of human-centric explainable AI, addressing the "false sense of security" issue, and future directions for large language models and XAI.
Plain English Explanation
Logic-based explainability is an approach to explaining how AI systems make their decisions. Instead of just showing the inputs and outputs, this method uses logical reasoning to break down the steps the AI took to arrive at its conclusion.
The paper starts by looking at the history of this field, going back to early work on using logical rules and symbolic reasoning to make AI more transparent. It then discusses the current state of logic-based explainability, including techniques for efficiently implementing these explanations and ways to make them more focused on the needs of human users.
One key challenge the paper explores is the "false sense of security" issue, where overly simplistic explanations can make people trust an AI system more than they should. The authors also look at how logic-based explainability might work with the large language models that are becoming increasingly prominent in AI.
Overall, the paper provides a detailed look at the progress made in logic-based explainability and the exciting future directions for this field as it continues to evolve.
Technical Explanation
The paper starts by tracing the history of logic-based explainability, which has roots going back to early work on symbolic AI and rule-based systems. The authors discuss how this approach aims to leverage logical reasoning to provide transparent, interpretable explanations of AI decision-making.
The paper then dives into the current state of the field, covering topics like distance-restricted explanations and the importance of human-centric explainable AI (XAI). The authors also address the potential false sense of security that can arise from overly simplistic explanations.
Looking to the future, the paper explores how logic-based explainability might be applied to the emerging field of large language models and XAI. The authors discuss the unique challenges and opportunities presented by these powerful yet complex AI systems.
Throughout the paper, the authors draw connections to related work and highlight key research directions and open problems in the field of logic-based explainability.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and balanced overview of logic-based explainability, acknowledging both the progress made in the field as well as the significant challenges that remain.
One strength of the paper is its emphasis on the importance of human-centric XAI. The authors rightly point out that explanations must be tailored to the needs and mental models of end-users, rather than just focusing on technical correctness. This is a crucial consideration as logic-based explainability moves towards real-world deployment.
However, the paper could have delved deeper into some of the limitations and potential pitfalls of logic-based approaches. For example, the authors mention the "false sense of security" issue but do not explore it in great detail. Additionally, the challenges of scaling logic-based explanations to complex, high-dimensional AI systems like large language models are not fully addressed.
It would also have been valuable for the paper to include a more critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of logic-based explainability compared to other XAI techniques, such as example-based or counterfactual approaches. This could help readers better understand the trade-offs and decide which explainability methods are most appropriate for their specific needs.
Conclusion
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the field of logic-based explainability, tracing its history, discussing the current state of the art, and exploring future directions and challenges. The authors highlight the importance of human-centric XAI and the need to address the "false sense of security" issue that can arise from overly simplistic explanations.
As AI systems become increasingly complex and influential, the demand for transparent and interpretable decision-making will only grow. The insights and research directions outlined in this paper will be invaluable in guiding the continued development of logic-based explainability and its application to real-world AI systems.
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
🔍
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
Privacy Implications of Explainable AI in Data-Driven Systems
Fatima Ezzeddine
0
0
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.
6/26/2024
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
New!Position: Explain to Question not to Justify
Przemyslaw Biecek, Wojciech Samek
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a young but very promising field of research. Unfortunately, the progress in this field is currently slowed down by divergent and incompatible goals. We separate various threads tangled within the area of XAI into two complementary cultures of human/value-oriented explanations (BLUE XAI) and model/validation-oriented explanations (RED XAI). This position paper argues that the area of RED XAI is currently under-explored, i.e., more methods for explainability are desperately needed to question models (e.g., extract knowledge from well-performing models as well as spotting and fixing bugs in faulty models), and the area of RED XAI hides great opportunities and potential for important research necessary to ensure the safety of AI systems. We conclude this paper by presenting promising challenges in this area.
7/1/2024