SIDEs: Separating Idealization from Deceptive Explanations in xAI

Overview

• Explainable AI (xAI) methods are crucial for building trust in black-box models, but recent criticism has called into question their reliability and validity
• The paper argues that xAI research should focus on evaluating whether the explanations provided by these methods are successful "idealizations" or deceptive distortions
• The paper introduces a novel framework called "SIDEs" (Successful Idealization or Deceptive Explanations) to assess the limitations and distortions introduced by xAI methods

Plain English Explanation

Black-box models, such as deep neural networks, are powerful but can be difficult to understand. Explainable AI (xAI) methods aim to provide explanations for the decisions made by these models, which is important for building trust and ensuring they are used responsibly.

However, some researchers have criticized current xAI methods, arguing that the explanations they provide are necessarily false and can be manipulated. This criticism has started to undermine the deployment of black-box models in high-stakes applications.

The paper argues that this criticism is misguided. In science, it is common to use "idealizations" - intentional distortions introduced to simplify theories and models. These idealizations are not necessarily false, but rather a successful scientific tool.

The paper proposes a new framework called "SIDEs" (Successful Idealization or Deceptive Explanations) to evaluate whether the limitations and distortions introduced by xAI methods are part of a successful idealization or are indeed deceptive, as the critics suggest. By drawing on examples from the natural sciences and philosophy of science, the paper aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the role of idealizations in xAI.

Through a qualitative analysis, the paper finds that some leading xAI methods, such as feature importance and counterfactual explanations, are subject to "idealization failure" and proposes ways to address this issue.

Technical Explanation

The paper starts by acknowledging the importance of explainable AI (xAI) methods for building trust in the use of black-box models. However, it also notes that recent criticism has called into question the reliability and validity of current xAI methods.

The paper then introduces the concept of "idealization" - the intentional distortions introduced to simplify scientific theories and models. The author argues that these idealizations are commonplace in the natural sciences and are often seen as a successful scientific tool, rather than a failure.

Building on this, the paper proposes a novel framework called "SIDEs" (Successful Idealization or Deceptive Explanations) to evaluate whether the limitations and distortions introduced by xAI methods are part of a successful idealization or are indeed deceptive, as the critics suggest.

The paper then provides a qualitative analysis of leading xAI methods, such as feature importance and counterfactual explanations, to assess whether they are subject to "idealization failure." The paper also suggests remedies for ameliorating this issue, such as adapting counterfactual explanations to specific user needs.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling case for the need to evaluate xAI methods through the lens of idealization, rather than simply dismissing them as necessarily false or deceptive. The author's use of examples from the natural sciences and philosophy of science provides a solid foundation for this argument.

However, the paper does not address the potential risks and harms that can arise from the use of black-box models, even with the application of xAI methods. While the author argues that idealization is a common and successful scientific tool, the stakes in high-stakes applications of AI, such as healthcare or criminal justice, may be much higher than in traditional scientific domains.

Additionally, the paper's qualitative analysis of specific xAI methods is limited, and more empirical research may be needed to fully validate the SIDEs framework and its ability to distinguish successful idealizations from deceptive explanations.

Overall, the paper provides a thought-provoking perspective on the role of idealization in xAI and highlights the need for more nuanced evaluation of these methods. Readers are encouraged to think critically about the research and its implications for the responsible deployment of black-box models in high-stakes domains.

Conclusion

This paper argues that the recent criticism of explainable AI (xAI) methods as necessarily false or deceptive is misguided. By drawing on the concept of "idealization" from the natural sciences and philosophy of science, the author introduces a novel framework called "SIDEs" to evaluate whether the limitations and distortions introduced by xAI methods are part of a successful idealization or are indeed deceptive.

The paper's qualitative analysis suggests that leading xAI methods, such as feature importance and counterfactual explanations, are subject to "idealization failure." The author proposes remedies to address this issue, highlighting the need for more nuanced evaluation of xAI methods and their role in building trust and responsible deployment of black-box models.

This research has important implications for the future of AI, as the ability to explain and justify the decisions of these powerful models will be crucial for their widespread adoption in high-stakes domains.