Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers
Recent works in Explainable AI mostly address the transparency issue of black-box models or create explanations for any kind of models (i.e., they are model-agnostic), while leaving explanations of interpretable models largely underexplored. In this paper, we fill this gap by focusing on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification. We do so because, albeit interpretable, PLR is challenging when it comes to explanations. In particular, we found that a standard way to extract explanations from this model does not consider relations among the features, making the explanations hardly plausible to humans. Hence, we propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of) computational argumentation to generate explanations (for outputs computed by PLR) which unearth model agreements and disagreements among the features. Specifically, we use computational argumentation as follows: we see features (patterns) in PLR as arguments in a form of quantified bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) and extract attacks and supports between arguments based on specificity of the arguments; we understand logistic regression as a gradual semantics for these QBAFs, used to determine the arguments' dialectic strength; and we study standard properties of gradual semantics for QBAFs in the context of our argumentative re-interpretation of PLR, sanctioning its suitability for explanatory purposes. We then show how to extract intuitive explanations (for outputs computed by PLR) from the constructed QBAFs. Finally, we conduct an empirical evaluation and two experiments in the context of human-AI collaboration to demonstrate the advantages of our resulting AXPLR method.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Binary text classificationregressionSpecificitytext-classificationText ClassificationMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Free Argumentative Exchanges for Explaining Image Classifiers
Deep learning models are powerful image classifiers but their opacity hinders their trustworthiness. Explanation methods for capturing the reasoning process within these classifiers faithfully and in a clear manner are s…
A Corpus of Deep Argumentative Structures as an Explanation to Argumentative Relations
In this paper, we compose a new task for deep argumentative structure analysis that goes beyond shallow discourse structure analysis. The idea is that argumentative relations can reasonably be represented with a small se…
Argumentation for Explainable Scheduling (Full Paper with Proofs)
Mathematical optimization offers highly-effective tools for finding solutions for problems with well-defined goals, notably scheduling. However, optimization solvers are often unexplainable black boxes whose solutions ar…
Abstract ArgumentationSchedulingInteractive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges
As the field of explainable AI (XAI) is maturing, calls for interactive explanations for (the outputs of) AI models are growing, but the state-of-the-art predominantly focuses on static explanations. In this paper, we fo…
counterfactualExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Explainable Decision Making with Lean and Argumentative Explanations
It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achievin…
Decision Making