Abstract Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have recently attracted great attention in geoscience due to their ability to capture non-linear system behavior and extract predictive spatiotemporal patterns. Given their black-box nature however, and the importance of prediction explainability, methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are gaining popularity as a means to explain the CNN decision-making strategy. Here, we establish an intercomparison of some of the most popular XAI methods and investigate their fidelity in explaining CNN decisions for geoscientific applications. Our goal is to raise awareness of the theoretical limitations of these methods and gain insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses to help guide best practices. The considered XAI methods are first applied to an idealized attribution benchmark, where the ground truth of explanation of the network is known a priori , to help objectively assess their performance. Secondly, we apply XAI to a climate-related prediction setting, namely to explain a CNN that is trained to predict the number of atmospheric rivers in daily snapshots of climate simulations. Our results highlight several important issues of XAI methods (e.g., gradient shattering, inability to distinguish the sign of attribution, ignorance to zero input) that have previously been overlooked in our field and, if not considered cautiously, may lead to a distorted picture of the CNN decision-making strategy. We envision that our analysis will motivate further investigation into XAI fidelity and will help towards a cautious implementation of XAI in geoscience, which can lead to further exploitation of CNNs and deep learning for prediction problems.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on September 28, 2024
Designing a Direct Feedback Loop between Humans and Convolutional Neural Networks through Local Explanations
The local explanation provides heatmaps on images to explain how Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) derive their output. Due to its visual straightforwardness, the method has been one of the most popular explainable AI (XAI) methods for diagnosing CNNs. Through our formative study (S1), however, we captured ML engineers' ambivalent perspective about the local explanation as a valuable and indispensable envision in building CNNs versus the process that exhausts them due to the heuristic nature of detecting vulnerability. Moreover, steering the CNNs based on the vulnerability learned from the diagnosis seemed highly challenging. To mitigate the gap, we designed DeepFuse, the first interactive design that realizes the direct feedback loop between a user and CNNs in diagnosing and revising CNN's vulnerability using local explanations. DeepFuse helps CNN engineers to systemically search unreasonable local explanations and annotate the new boundaries for those identified as unreasonable in a labor-efficient manner. Next, it steers the model based on the given annotation such that the model doesn't introduce similar mistakes. We conducted a two-day study (S2) with 12 experienced CNN engineers. Using DeepFuse, participants made a more accurate and reasonable model than the current state-of-the-art. Also, participants found the way DeepFuse guides case-based reasoning can practically improve their current practice. We provide implications for design that explain how future HCI-driven design can move our practice forward to make XAI-driven insights more actionable.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10478612
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Volume:
- 7
- Issue:
- CSCW2
- ISSN:
- 2573-0142
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 32
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
While a vast collection of explainable AI (XAI) algorithms has been developed in recent years, they have been criticized for significant gaps with how humans produce and consume explanations. As a result, current XAI techniques are often found to be hard to use and lack effectiveness. In this work, we attempt to close these gaps by making AI explanations selective ---a fundamental property of human explanations---by selectively presenting a subset of model reasoning based on what aligns with the recipient's preferences. We propose a general framework for generating selective explanations by leveraging human input on a small dataset. This framework opens up a rich design space that accounts for different selectivity goals, types of input, and more. As a showcase, we use a decision-support task to explore selective explanations based on what the decision-maker would consider relevant to the decision task. We conducted two experimental studies to examine three paradigms based on our proposed framework: in Study 1, we ask the participants to provide critique-based or open-ended input to generate selective explanations (self-input). In Study 2, we show the participants selective explanations based on input from a panel of similar users (annotator input). Our experiments demonstrate the promise of selective explanations in reducing over-reliance on AI and improving collaborative decision making and subjective perceptions of the AI system, but also paint a nuanced picture that attributes some of these positive effects to the opportunity to provide one's own input to augment AI explanations. Overall, our work proposes a novel XAI framework inspired by human communication behaviors and demonstrates its potential to encourage future work to make AI explanations more human-compatible.
-
While EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches aim to improve human-AI collaborative decision-making by improving model transparency and mental model formations, experiential factors associated with human users can cause challenges in ways system designers do not anticipate. In this paper, we first showcase a user study on how anchoring bias can potentially affect mental model formations when users initially interact with an intelligent system and the role of explanations in addressing this bias. Using a video activity recognition tool in cooking domain, we asked participants to verify whether a set of kitchen policies are being followed, with each policy focusing on a weakness or a strength. We controlled the order of the policies and the presence of explanations to test our hypotheses. Our main finding shows that those who observed system strengths early-on were more prone to automation bias and made significantly more errors due to positive first impressions of the system, while they built a more accurate mental model of the system competencies. On the other hand, those who encountered weaknesses earlier made significantly fewer errors since they tended to rely more on themselves, while they also underestimated model competencies due to having a more negative first impression of the model. Motivated by these findings and similar existing work, we formalize and present a conceptual model of user’s past experiences that examine the relations between user’s backgrounds, experiences, and human factors in XAI systems based on usage time. Our work presents strong findings and implications, aiming to raise the awareness of AI designers towards biases associated with user impressions and backgrounds.more » « less
-
Active learning has long been a topic of study in machine learning. However, as increasingly complex and opaque models have become standard practice, the process of active learning, too, has become more opaque. There has been little investigation into interpreting what specific trends and patterns an active learning strategy may be exploring. This work expands on the Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations framework (LIME) to provide explanations for active learning recommendations. We demonstrate how LIME can be used to generate locally faithful explanations for an active learning strategy, and how these explanations can be used to understand how different models and datasets explore a problem space over time. These explanations can also be used to generate batches based on common sources of uncertainty. These regions of common uncertainty can be useful for understanding a model’s current weaknesses. In order to quantify the per-subgroup differences in how an active learning strategy queries spatial regions, we introduce a notion of uncertainty bias (based on disparate impact) to measure the discrepancy in the confidence for a model’s predictions between one subgroup and another. Using the uncertainty bias measure, we show that our query explanations accurately reflect the subgroup focus of the active learning queries, allowing for an interpretable explanation of what is being learned as points with similar sources of uncertainty have their uncertainty bias resolved. We demonstrate that this technique can be applied to track uncertainty bias over user-defined clusters or automatically generated clusters based on the source of uncertainty. We also measure how the choice of initial labeled examples effects groups over time.more » « less
-
Recent years have witnessed the growing literature in empirical evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods. This study contributes to this ongoing conversation by presenting a comparison on the effects of a set of established XAI methods in AI-assisted decision making. Based on our review of previous literature, we highlight three desirable properties that ideal AI explanations should satisfy — improve people’s understanding of the AI model, help people recognize the model uncertainty, and support people’s calibrated trust in the model. Through three randomized controlled experiments, we evaluate whether four types of common model-agnostic explainable AI methods satisfy these properties on two types of AI models of varying levels of complexity, and in two kinds of decision making contexts where people perceive themselves as having different levels of domain expertise. Our results demonstrate that many AI explanations do not satisfy any of the desirable properties when used on decision making tasks that people have little domain expertise in. On decision making tasks that people are more knowledgeable, the feature contribution explanation is shown to satisfy more desiderata of AI explanations, even when the AI model is inherently complex. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for improving the design of XAI methods to better support human decision making, and for advancing more rigorous empirical evaluation of XAI methods.more » « less
