[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3351095.3372870acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Explainability fact sheets: a framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches

Published: 27 January 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Explanations in Machine Learning come in many forms, but a consensus regarding their desired properties is yet to emerge. In this paper we introduce a taxonomy and a set of descriptors that can be used to characterise and systematically assess explainable systems along five key dimensions: functional, operational, usability, safety and validation. In order to design a comprehensive and representative taxonomy and associated descriptors we surveyed the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence literature, extracting the criteria and desiderata that other authors have proposed or implicitly used in their research. The survey includes papers introducing new explainability algorithms to see what criteria are used to guide their development and how these algorithms are evaluated, as well as papers proposing such criteria from both computer science and social science perspectives. This novel framework allows to systematically compare and contrast explainability approaches, not just to better understand their capabilities but also to identify discrepancies between their theoretical qualities and properties of their implementations. We developed an operationalisation of the framework in the form of Explainability Fact Sheets, which enable researchers and practitioners alike to quickly grasp capabilities and limitations of a particular explainable method. When used as a Work Sheet, our taxonomy can guide the development of new explainability approaches by aiding in their critical evaluation along the five proposed dimensions.

Supplementary Material

PDF File (p56-sokol-supp.pdf)
Supplemental material.

References

[1]
Matthew Arnold, Rachel KE Bellamy, Michael Hind, Stephanie Houde, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Ravi Nair, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Alexandra Olteanu, David Piorkowski, Darrell Reimer, John Richards, Jason Tsay, and Kush R Varshney. 2019. FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier's declarations of conformity. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (July 2019), 6:1--6:13.
[2]
Emily M Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018. Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 6 (2018), 587--604.
[3]
Or Biran and Kathleen McKeown. 2014. Justification narratives for individual classifications. In Proceedings of the AutoML workshop at ICML, Vol. 2014.
[4]
Dimitri Bohlender and Maximilian A Köhl. 2019. Towards a Characterization of Explainable Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03096 (2019).
[5]
Mark Craven and Jude W Shavlik. 1996. Extracting tree-structured representations of trained networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 24--30.
[6]
Christian Davenport. 2010. Rashomon effect, observation, and data generation. Media bias, perspective, and state repression (2010).
[7]
Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 (2017).
[8]
Phan Minh Dung, Robert A Kowalski, and Francesca Toni. 2009. Assumption-Based Argumentation.
[9]
Malin Eiband, Hanna Schneider, Mark Bilandzic, Julian Fazekas-Con, Mareike Haug, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2018. Bringing transparency design into practice. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 211--223.
[10]
Jerome H Friedman. 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics (2001), 1189--1232.
[11]
Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for Datasets. 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAT/ML 2018) at the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018), Stockholm, Sweden (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09010.
[12]
Alex Goldstein, Adam Kapelner, Justin Bleich, and Emil Pitkin. 2015. Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 24, 1 (2015), 44--65.
[13]
H Paul Grice, Peter Cole, Jerry Morgan, et al. 1975. Logic and conversation. 1975 (1975), 41--58.
[14]
Mark Hall, Daniel Harborne, Richard Tomsett, Vedran Galetic, Santiago Quintana-Amate, Alistair Nottle, and Alun Preece. 2019. A Systematic Method to Understand Requirements for Explainable AI (XAI) Systems. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI 2019), Macau, China.
[15]
Bernease Herman. 2017. The promise and peril of human evaluation for model interpretability. Interpretable ML Symposium at the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07414.
[16]
Sarah Holland, Ahmed Hosny, Sarah Newman, Joshua Joseph, and Kasia Chmielinski. 2018. The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standards. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03677 (2018).
[17]
People + AI Research (PAIR) initiative at Google. 2019. People + AI Guidebook: Designing human-centered AI products. https://pair.withgoogle.com
[18]
Hilary Johnson and Peter Johnson. 1993. Explanation facilities and interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 159--166.
[19]
Patrick Gage Kelley, Joanna Bresee, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Robert W. Reeder. 2009. A "Nutrition Label" for Privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 12 pages.
[20]
Been Kim, Rajiv Khanna, and Oluwasanmi O Koyejo. 2016. Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2280--2288.
[21]
Been Kim, Cynthia Rudin, and Julie A Shah. 2014. The Bayesian case model: A generative approach for case-based reasoning and prototype classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1952--1960.
[22]
Derek J Koehler. 1991. Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological bulletin 110, 3 (1991), 499.
[23]
Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Doina Precup and Yee Whye Teh (Eds.), Vol. 70. PMLR, International Convention Centre, Sydney, Australia, 1885--1894. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/koh17a.html
[24]
Josua Krause, Adam Perer, and Enrico Bertini. 2016. Using visual analytics to interpret predictive machine learning models. 2016 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016) (2016). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05685.
[25]
Josua Krause, Adam Perer, and Kenney Ng. 2016. Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of black-box machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5686--5697.
[26]
Todd Kulesza, Margaret Burnett, Weng-Keen Wong, and Simone Stumpf. 2015. Principles of explanatory debugging to personalize interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 126--137.
[27]
Todd Kulesza, Simone Stumpf, Margaret Burnett, and Irwin Kwan. 2012. Tell me more?: the effects of mental model soundness on personalizing an intelligent agent. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1--10.
[28]
Todd Kulesza, Simone Stumpf, Margaret Burnett, Sherry Yang, Irwin Kwan, and Weng-Keen Wong. 2013. Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2013 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 3--10.
[29]
Himabindu Lakkaraju, Ece Kamar, Rich Caruana, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Interpretable & explorable approximations of black box models. 4th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAT/ML 2017) at the 23rd SIGKDD conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2017), Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01154.
[30]
Thibault Laugel, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Christophe Marsala, Xavier Renard, and Marcin Detyniecki. 2019. The Dangers of Post-hoc Interpretability: Unjustified Counterfactual Explanations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2801--2807.
[31]
Thibault Laugel, Xavier Renard, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Christophe Marsala, and Marcin Detyniecki. 2018. Defining locality for surrogates in post-hoc interpretablity. 3rd Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2018) at the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018), Stockholm, Sweden (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07498.
[32]
Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The Mythos of Model Interpretability. Commun. ACM 16, 3, Article 30 (June 2018), 27 pages.
[33]
Tania Lombrozo. 2007. Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive psychology 55, 3 (2007), 232--257.
[34]
Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence 267 (2019), 1--38.
[35]
Tim Miller, Piers Howe, and Liz Sonenberg. 2017. Explainable AI: Beware of Inmates Running the Asylum. In IJCAI-17 Workshop on Explainable AI (XAI). 36.
[36]
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 220--229.
[37]
The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. 2017. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/autonomous_systems.html
[38]
Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie. 2018. The book of why: the new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
[39]
Miquel Perello-Nieto, E Silva Telmo De Menezes Filho, Meelis Kull, and Peter Flach. 2016. Background Check: A general technique to build more reliable and versatile classifiers. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 1143--1148.
[40]
Rafael Poyiadzi, Kacper Sokol, Raul Santos-Rodriguez, Tijl De Bie, and Peter Flach. 2020. FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations. In Proceedings of the 2020 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM, (to appear).
[41]
Alun Preece, Dan Harborne, Dave Braines, Richard Tomsett, and Supriyo Chakraborty. 2018. Stakeholders in Explainable AI. 2018 AAAI Fall Symposium Series: Artificial Intelligence in Government and Public Sector, Arlington, Virginia, USA (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00184.
[42]
Dillon Reisman, Jason Schultz, Kate Crawford, and Meredith Whittaker. 2018. Algorithmic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability. AI Now Institute (2018).
[43]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Model-agnostic interpretability of machine learning. 1st Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016) at the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2016), New York, NY (2016). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05386.
[44]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, August 13-17, 2016. 1135--1144.
[45]
Marko Robnik-Šikonja and Marko Bohanec. 2018. Perturbation-Based Explanations of Prediction Models. In Human and Machine Learning. Springer, 159--175.
[46]
Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil. 2002. The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive science 26, 5 (2002), 521--562.
[47]
Pierangela Samarati and Latanya Sweeney. 1998. Protecting privacy when disclosing information: k-anonymity and its enforcement through generalization and suppression. Technical Report. technical report, SRI International.
[48]
Johanes Schneider and Joshua Handali. 2019. Personalized Explanation for Machine Learning: a Conceptualization. In ECIS.
[49]
Daniel J Simons. 2000. Current approaches to change blindness. Visual cognition 7, 1-3 (2000), 1--15.
[50]
Kacper Sokol, Alexander Hepburn, Raul Santos-Rodriguez, and Peter Flach. 2019. bLIMEy: Surrogate Prediction Explanations Beyond LIME. 2019 Workshop on Human-Centric Machine Learning (HCML 2019) at the 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019), Vancouver, Canada (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.13016 arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13016.
[51]
Gabriele Tolomei, Fabrizio Silvestri, Andrew Haines, and Mounia Lalmas. 2017. Interpretable Predictions of Tree-based Ensembles via Actionable Feature Tweaking. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 465--474.
[52]
Richard Tomsett, Dave Braines, Dan Harborne, Alun Preece, and Supriyo Chakraborty. 2018. Interpretable to Whom? A Role-based Model for Analyzing Interpretable Machine Learning Systems. 3rd Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2018) at the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018), Stockholm, Sweden (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07552.
[53]
Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2018. Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31 (2) (2018).
[54]
Douglas Walton. 2007. Dialogical Models of Explanation. ExaCt 2007 (2007), 1--9.
[55]
Daniel S Weld and Gagan Bansal. 2019. The challenge of crafting intelligible intelligence. Commun. ACM 62, 6 (2019), 70--79.
[56]
Ke Yang, Julia Stoyanovich, Abolfazl Asudeh, Bill Howe, HV Jagadish, and Gerome Miklau. 2018. A nutritional label for rankings. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 1773--1776.
[57]
Yujia Zhang, Kuangyan Song, Yiming Sun, Sarah Tan, and Madeleine Udell. 2019. "Why Should You Trust My Explanation?" Understanding Uncertainty in LIME Explanations. AI for Social Good Workshop at the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2019), Long Beach, CA (2019). arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12991.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)A Survey on ML Techniques for Multi-Platform Malware Detection: Securing PC, Mobile Devices, IoT, and Cloud EnvironmentsSensors10.3390/s2504115325:4(1153)Online publication date: 13-Feb-2025
  • (2025)LIMETREE: Consistent and Faithful Surrogate Explanations of Multiple ClassesElectronics10.3390/electronics1405092914:5(929)Online publication date: 26-Feb-2025
  • (2025)Smart Transparency: A User-Centered Approach to Improving Human–Machine Interaction in High-Risk Supervisory Control TasksElectronics10.3390/electronics1403042014:3(420)Online publication date: 21-Jan-2025
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Explainability fact sheets: a framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        FAT* '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
        January 2020
        895 pages
        ISBN:9781450369367
        DOI:10.1145/3351095
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 27 January 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. AI
        2. ML
        3. desiderata
        4. explainability
        5. fact sheet
        6. interpretability
        7. taxonomy
        8. transparency
        9. work sheet

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Conference

        FAT* '20
        Sponsor:

        Upcoming Conference

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)529
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)58
        Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2025)A Survey on ML Techniques for Multi-Platform Malware Detection: Securing PC, Mobile Devices, IoT, and Cloud EnvironmentsSensors10.3390/s2504115325:4(1153)Online publication date: 13-Feb-2025
        • (2025)LIMETREE: Consistent and Faithful Surrogate Explanations of Multiple ClassesElectronics10.3390/electronics1405092914:5(929)Online publication date: 26-Feb-2025
        • (2025)Smart Transparency: A User-Centered Approach to Improving Human–Machine Interaction in High-Risk Supervisory Control TasksElectronics10.3390/electronics1403042014:3(420)Online publication date: 21-Jan-2025
        • (2025)Open and Extensible Benchmark for Explainable Artificial Intelligence MethodsAlgorithms10.3390/a1802008518:2(85)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2025
        • (2025)How informative is your XAI? Assessing the quality of explanations through information powerFrontiers in Computer Science10.3389/fcomp.2024.14123416Online publication date: 8-Jan-2025
        • (2025)A Typology of Explanations for Explainability-by-DesignSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.5020690Online publication date: 2025
        • (2025)A typology of explanations to support Explainability-by-DesignACM Journal on Responsible Computing10.1145/37085042:1(1-36)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2025
        • (2025)A.I. Robustness: a Human-Centered Perspective on Technological Challenges and OpportunitiesACM Computing Surveys10.1145/366592657:6(1-38)Online publication date: 10-Feb-2025
        • (2025)Comprehension is a double-edged sword: Over-interpreting unspecified information in intelligible machine learning explanationsInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103376193(103376)Online publication date: Jan-2025
        • (2025)Nullius in Explanans: an ethical risk assessment for explainable AIEthics and Information Technology10.1007/s10676-024-09800-727:1Online publication date: 1-Mar-2025
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media