An official website of the United States government
Numerous methods have been developed to explain the inner mechanism of deep neural network (DNN) based classifiers. Existing explanation methods are often limited to explaining predictions of a pre-specified class, which answers the question “why is the input classified into this class?” However, such explanations with respect to a single class are inherently insufficient because they do not capture features with class-discriminative power. That is, features that are important for predicting one class may also be important for other classes. To capture features with true class-discriminative power, we should instead ask “why is the input classified into this class, but not others?” To answer this question, we propose a weighted contrastive framework for explaining DNNs. Our framework can easily convert any existing back-propagation explanation methods to build class-contrastive explanations. We theoretically validate our weighted contrast explanation in general back-propagation explanations, and show that our framework enables class-contrastive explanations with significant improvements in both qualitative and quantitative experiments. Based on the results, we point out an important blind spot in the current explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) study, where explanations towards the predicted logits and the probabilities are obfuscated. We suggest that these two aspects should be distinguished explicitly any time explanation methods are applied.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 15, 2026
CXAD: Contrastive Explanations for Anomaly Detection: Algorithms, Complexity Results and Experiments
Anomaly/Outlier detection (AD/OD) is often used in controversial applications to detect unusual behavior which is then further investigated or policed. This means an explanation of why something was predicted as an anomaly is desirable not only for individuals but also for the general population and policy-makers. However, existing explainable AI (XAI) methods are not well suited for Explainable Anomaly detection (XAD). In particular, most XAI methods provide instance-level explanations, whereas a model/global-level explanation is desirable for a complete understanding of the definition of normality or abnormality used by an AD algorithm. Further, existing XAI methods try to explain an algorithm’s behavior by finding an explanation of why an instance belongs to a category. However, by definition, anomalies/outliers are chosen because they are different from the normal instances. We propose a new style of model agnostic explanation, called contrastive explanation, that is designed specifically for AD algorithms which use semantic tags to create explanations. It addresses the novel challenge of providing a model-agnostic and global-level explanation by finding contrasts between the outlier group of instances and the normal group. We propose three formulations: (i) Contrastive Explanation, (ii) Strongly Contrastive Explanation, and (iii) Multiple Strong Contrastive Explanations. The last formulation is specifically for the case where a given dataset is believed to have many types of anomalies. For the first two formulations, we show the underlying problem is in the computational class P by presenting linear and polynomial time exact algorithms. We show that the last formulation is computationally intractable, and we use an integer linear program for that version to generate experimental results. We demonstrate our work on several data sets such as the CelebA image data set, the HateXplain language data set, and the COMPAS dataset on fairness. These data sets are chosen as their ground truth explanations are clear or well-known.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2310481
- PAR ID:
- 10635912
- Publisher / Repository:
- Journal of Machine Learning Research
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Transactions on machine learning research
- ISSN:
- 2835-8856
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has garnered significant attention for enhancing transparency and trust in machine learning models. However, the scopes of most existing explanation techniques focus either on offering a holistic view of the explainee model (global explanation) or on individual instances (local explanation), while the middle ground, i.e., cohort-based explanation, is less explored. Cohort explanations offer insights into the explainee's behavior on a specific group or cohort of instances, enabling a deeper understanding of model decisions within a defined context. In this paper, we discuss the unique challenges and opportunities associated with measuring cohort explanations, define their desired properties, and create a generalized framework for generating cohort explanations based on supervised clustering.more » « less
-
Cox, Michael T. (Ed.)Goal reasoning agents can solve novel problems by detecting an anomaly between expectations and observations; generating explanations about plausible causes for the anomaly; and formulating goals to remove the cause. Yet not all anomalies represent problems. We claim that the task of discerning the difference between benign anomalies and those that represent an actual problem by an agent will increase its performance. Furthermore, we present a new definition of the term “problem” in a goal reasoning context. This paper discusses the role of explanations and goal formulation in response to developing problems and implements the response. The paper illustrates goal formulation in a mine clearance domain and a labor relations domain. We also show the empirical difference between a standard planning agent, an agent that detects anomalies and an agent that recognizes problems.more » « less
-
State-of-the-art industrial-level recommender system applications mostly adopt complicated model structures such as deep neural networks. While this helps with the model performance, the lack of system explainability caused by these nearly blackbox models also raises concerns and potentially weakens the users’ trust in the system. Existing work on explainable recommendation mostly focuses on designing interpretable model structures to generate model-intrinsic explanations. However, most of them have complex structures, and it is difficult to directly apply these designs onto existing recommendation applications due to the effectiveness and efficiency concerns. However, while there have been some studies on explaining recommendation models without knowing their internal structures (i.e., model-agnostic explanations), these methods have been criticized for not reflecting the actual reasoning process of the recommendation model or, in other words, faithfulness . How to develop model-agnostic explanation methods and evaluate them in terms of faithfulness is mostly unknown. In this work, we propose a reusable evaluation pipeline for model-agnostic explainable recommendation. Our pipeline evaluates the quality of model-agnostic explanation from the perspectives of faithfulness and scrutability. We further propose a model-agnostic explanation framework for recommendation and verify it with the proposed evaluation pipeline. Extensive experiments on public datasets demonstrate that our model-agnostic framework is able to generate explanations that are faithful to the recommendation model. We additionally provide quantitative and qualitative study to show that our explanation framework could enhance the scrutability of blackbox recommendation model. With proper modification, our evaluation pipeline and model-agnostic explanation framework could be easily migrated to existing applications. Through this work, we hope to encourage the community to focus more on faithfulness evaluation of explainable recommender systems.more » « less
