REVIEW 1 cited by
Responsibility: An Example-based Explainable AI approach via Training Process Inspection
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
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are intended to help human users better understand the decision making of an AI agent. However, many modern XAI approaches are unintuitive to end users, particularly those without prior AI or ML knowledge. In this paper, we present a novel XAI approach we call Responsibility that identifies the most responsible training example for a particular decision. This example can then be shown as an explanation: "this is what I (the AI) learned that led me to do that". We present experimental results across a number of domains along with the results of an Amazon Mechanical Turk user study, comparing responsibility and existing XAI methods on an image classification task. Our results demonstrate that responsibility can help improve accuracy for both human end users and secondary ML models.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
What Makes for a Good Saliency Map? Comparing Strategies for Evaluating Saliency Maps in Explainable AI (XAI)
A user study of 166 ICT graduates shows Grad-CAM best improves users' ability to predict classifier accuracy, Guided Backpropagation scores best on mathematical metrics, and the two rankings do not align.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.