Position: Explain to Question not to Justify
2402.13914
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses the "XAI crisis" and the fallacies behind it
- It examines the two main cultures in the Explainable AI (XAI) field - one focused on justification, the other on explanation
- The paper presents new challenges for the field of XAI, including the need to move beyond justification and focus on truly explanatory AI systems
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the current challenges and misconceptions in the field of Explainable AI (XAI). XAI aims to make AI systems more transparent and understandable to humans. However, the authors argue that there is a "crisis" in XAI, with many systems focused on justification rather than true explanation.
The paper identifies two main "cultures" in XAI. One culture is focused on justifying the decisions of AI systems, providing post-hoc rationalizations for why the system made a particular choice. The other culture is more focused on actually explaining the inner workings and decision-making process of the AI in an understandable way.
The authors argue that the justification-focused approach is ultimately flawed, as it does not really provide meaningful insight into how the AI system operates. Instead, they call for a shift towards the explanatory culture, where the goal is to create AI systems that can genuinely explain their reasoning in plain, understandable terms.
This shift presents new challenges for the field of XAI. Researchers will need to develop new techniques and frameworks that go beyond simply justifying decisions, and instead focus on building AI systems that can engage in true, transparent explanation. This will require rethinking the design and evaluation of XAI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper critically examines the current state of the Explainable AI (XAI) field, identifying two distinct "cultures" that have emerged. The first culture is focused on justification-based XAI, where the goal is to provide post-hoc rationalizations for the decisions made by AI systems. This approach aims to make the system's outputs more understandable, but does not necessarily provide insight into the system's actual decision-making process.
In contrast, the second culture is more focused on explanatory XAI, where the goal is to develop AI systems that can genuinely explain their inner workings and reasoning in a way that is transparent and understandable to human users. This approach requires rethinking the design and evaluation of XAI systems, moving beyond simple post-hoc justifications.
The paper argues that the justification-focused approach is ultimately flawed, as it does not address the deeper issues of trust, accountability, and transparency that are at the heart of the "XAI crisis." Instead, the authors call for a shift towards the explanatory culture, which they believe holds more promise for developing AI systems that are truly understandable and trustworthy.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the current state of the XAI field, particularly the dominance of justification-based approaches. The authors make a compelling case that these approaches do not actually provide meaningful explanation or insight into how AI systems make decisions.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into the technical and practical challenges of developing truly explanatory AI systems. While the authors advocate for a shift towards the explanatory culture, they do not provide a clear roadmap for how this can be achieved.
Additional research on techniques for generating transparent and interpretable AI explanations may be necessary to fully address the concerns raised in this paper.
Furthermore, the paper does not touch on the potential security and privacy implications of developing more transparent AI systems. As the field of XAI advances, these additional considerations will need to be carefully explored.
Conclusion
The paper makes a compelling argument that the current state of the XAI field is dominated by a justification-focused approach, which ultimately fails to address the deeper issues of trust, accountability, and transparency. The authors call for a shift towards a more explanatory culture in XAI, where the goal is to develop AI systems that can genuinely explain their decision-making processes in an understandable way.
This shift presents new challenges for researchers, who will need to rethink the design and evaluation of XAI systems. While the paper does not provide a clear roadmap for achieving this, it serves as an important wake-up call for the XAI community to move beyond simple post-hoc justifications and toward truly transparent and explainable AI.
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
🤔
Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Future
Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
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.
6/19/2024
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
False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Neo Christopher Chung, Hongkyou Chung, Hearim Lee, Lennart Brocki, Hongbeom Chung, George Dyer
0
0
A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. Explainability has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous box-ticking exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.
6/14/2024
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