REVIEW 2 cited by
Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learn
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Current learning machines have successfully solved hard application problems, reaching high accuracy and displaying seemingly "intelligent" behavior. Here we apply recent techniques for explaining decisions of state-of-the-art learning machines and analyze various tasks from computer vision and arcade games. This showcases a spectrum of problem-solving behaviors ranging from naive and short-sighted, to well-informed and strategic. We observe that standard performance evaluation metrics can be oblivious to distinguishing these diverse problem solving behaviors. Furthermore, we propose our semi-automated Spectral Relevance Analysis that provides a practically effective way of characterizing and validating the behavior of nonlinear learning machines. This helps to assess whether a learned model indeed delivers reliably for the problem that it was conceived for. Furthermore, our work intends to add a voice of caution to the ongoing excitement about machine intelligence and pledges to evaluate and judge some of these recent successes in a more nuanced manner.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Essence of Contextual Understanding in Theory of Mind: A Study on Question Answering with Story Characters
A new benchmark tests LLMs on theory-of-mind questions about novel characters, showing that humans with book knowledge outperform the best LLMs.
-
EvolvTrip: Enhancing Literary Character Understanding with Temporal Theory-of-Mind Graphs
A temporal knowledge graph of character mental states is proposed to improve LLM performance on a new ToM benchmark, but the evaluation is circular because the same LLM generated the benchmark and the hints.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.