Mythreyi Velmurugan, Chun Ouyang, Renuka Sindhgatta, Catarina Moreira
{"title":"透过镜子:使用透明模型评估事后解释","authors":"Mythreyi Velmurugan, Chun Ouyang, Renuka Sindhgatta, Catarina Moreira","doi":"10.1007/s41060-023-00445-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Modern machine learning methods allow for complex and in-depth analytics, but the predictive models generated by these methods are often highly complex and lack transparency. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are used to improve the interpretability of these complex “black box” models, thereby increasing transparency and enabling informed decision-making. However, the inherent fitness of these explainable methods, particularly the faithfulness of explanations to the decision-making processes of the model, can be hard to evaluate. In this work, we examine and evaluate the explanations provided by four XAI methods, using fully transparent “glass box” models trained on tabular data. Our results suggest that the fidelity of explanations is determined by the types of variables used, as well as the linearity of the relationship between variables and model prediction. We find that each XAI method evaluated has its own strengths and weaknesses, determined by the assumptions inherent in the explanation mechanism. Thus, though such methods are model-agnostic, we find significant differences in explanation quality across different technical setups. Given the numerous factors that determine the quality of explanations, including the specific explanation-generation procedures implemented by XAI methods, we suggest that model-agnostic XAI methods may still require expert guidance for implementation.","PeriodicalId":45667,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Data Science and Analytics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Through the looking glass: evaluating post hoc explanations using transparent models\",\"authors\":\"Mythreyi Velmurugan, Chun Ouyang, Renuka Sindhgatta, Catarina Moreira\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41060-023-00445-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Modern machine learning methods allow for complex and in-depth analytics, but the predictive models generated by these methods are often highly complex and lack transparency. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are used to improve the interpretability of these complex “black box” models, thereby increasing transparency and enabling informed decision-making. However, the inherent fitness of these explainable methods, particularly the faithfulness of explanations to the decision-making processes of the model, can be hard to evaluate. In this work, we examine and evaluate the explanations provided by four XAI methods, using fully transparent “glass box” models trained on tabular data. Our results suggest that the fidelity of explanations is determined by the types of variables used, as well as the linearity of the relationship between variables and model prediction. We find that each XAI method evaluated has its own strengths and weaknesses, determined by the assumptions inherent in the explanation mechanism. Thus, though such methods are model-agnostic, we find significant differences in explanation quality across different technical setups. Given the numerous factors that determine the quality of explanations, including the specific explanation-generation procedures implemented by XAI methods, we suggest that model-agnostic XAI methods may still require expert guidance for implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Data Science and Analytics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Data Science and Analytics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-023-00445-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Data Science and Analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-023-00445-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Through the looking glass: evaluating post hoc explanations using transparent models
Abstract Modern machine learning methods allow for complex and in-depth analytics, but the predictive models generated by these methods are often highly complex and lack transparency. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are used to improve the interpretability of these complex “black box” models, thereby increasing transparency and enabling informed decision-making. However, the inherent fitness of these explainable methods, particularly the faithfulness of explanations to the decision-making processes of the model, can be hard to evaluate. In this work, we examine and evaluate the explanations provided by four XAI methods, using fully transparent “glass box” models trained on tabular data. Our results suggest that the fidelity of explanations is determined by the types of variables used, as well as the linearity of the relationship between variables and model prediction. We find that each XAI method evaluated has its own strengths and weaknesses, determined by the assumptions inherent in the explanation mechanism. Thus, though such methods are model-agnostic, we find significant differences in explanation quality across different technical setups. Given the numerous factors that determine the quality of explanations, including the specific explanation-generation procedures implemented by XAI methods, we suggest that model-agnostic XAI methods may still require expert guidance for implementation.
期刊介绍:
Data Science has been established as an important emergent scientific field and paradigm driving research evolution in such disciplines as statistics, computing science and intelligence science, and practical transformation in such domains as science, engineering, the public sector, business, social science, and lifestyle. The field encompasses the larger areas of artificial intelligence, data analytics, machine learning, pattern recognition, natural language understanding, and big data manipulation. It also tackles related new scientific challenges, ranging from data capture, creation, storage, retrieval, sharing, analysis, optimization, and visualization, to integrative analysis across heterogeneous and interdependent complex resources for better decision-making, collaboration, and, ultimately, value creation.The International Journal of Data Science and Analytics (JDSA) brings together thought leaders, researchers, industry practitioners, and potential users of data science and analytics, to develop the field, discuss new trends and opportunities, exchange ideas and practices, and promote transdisciplinary and cross-domain collaborations. The journal is composed of three streams: Regular, to communicate original and reproducible theoretical and experimental findings on data science and analytics; Applications, to report the significant data science applications to real-life situations; and Trends, to report expert opinion and comprehensive surveys and reviews of relevant areas and topics in data science and analytics.Topics of relevance include all aspects of the trends, scientific foundations, techniques, and applications of data science and analytics, with a primary focus on:statistical and mathematical foundations for data science and analytics;understanding and analytics of complex data, human, domain, network, organizational, social, behavior, and system characteristics, complexities and intelligences;creation and extraction, processing, representation and modelling, learning and discovery, fusion and integration, presentation and visualization of complex data, behavior, knowledge and intelligence;data analytics, pattern recognition, knowledge discovery, machine learning, deep analytics and deep learning, and intelligent processing of various data (including transaction, text, image, video, graph and network), behaviors and systems;active, real-time, personalized, actionable and automated analytics, learning, computation, optimization, presentation and recommendation; big data architecture, infrastructure, computing, matching, indexing, query processing, mapping, search, retrieval, interoperability, exchange, and recommendation;in-memory, distributed, parallel, scalable and high-performance computing, analytics and optimization for big data;review, surveys, trends, prospects and opportunities of data science research, innovation and applications;data science applications, intelligent devices and services in scientific, business, governmental, cultural, behavioral, social and economic, health and medical, human, natural and artificial (including online/Web, cloud, IoT, mobile and social media) domains; andethics, quality, privacy, safety and security, trust, and risk of data science and analytics