Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 121 references

Knowledge-Augmented Explainable and Interpretable Learning for Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Combining domain knowledge with data-driven learning—rather than choosing one or the other—lets anomaly detection and diagnosis stay accurate while becoming transparent enough for a human to check.

desk verdict A competent, clearly written review chapter that consolidates the authors' own prior work; the central understandability claim rests on an unvalidated proxy, so it deserves a serious referee but needs tempering. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00146 v1 pith:CB7Q2WMT submitted 2024-11-28 cs.LG cs.AI

Martin Atzmueller , Tim Bohne , Patricia Windler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords ExplainableLearningInterpretableModelingPatternMiningDomainKnowledgeNeuro-SymbolicHybridModelsAnomalyDetectionDiagnosis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a review of three knowledge-augmented approaches to anomaly detection and diagnosis, and its claim is that combining domain knowledge with data-driven learning yields systems that are more transparent and interpretable than purely data-driven ones while remaining accurate enough for practical use. The three instantiations are pattern mining guided by knowledge graphs, learned diagnostic scoring rules pruned by domain knowledge, and a neuro-symbolic system that alternates knowledge-graph reasoning with CNN classification. The paper's evidence includes a medical scoring-system evaluation where domain-knowledge pruning reduces the average number of rules per diagnosis from 10.93 to 2.12 while mean accuracy falls from 0.90 to 0.85. This matters because high-risk settings such as medicine, industry, and automotive diagnostics need explanations that a person can check, and the chapter shows concrete mechanisms for getting them instead of post-hoc explanations of black boxes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the knowledge graph used as a shared symbolic substrate. In the pattern-mining approach it supplies the features and the domain-defined KPI that defines what counts as an anomaly; in the scoring-system approach it supplies partition-class and abnormality constraints that prune spurious scoring rules; and in the neuro-symbolic approach it stores causal component relationships, drives the diagnostic circuit's SPARQL queries, and records every classification and heatmap as new knowledge. The counterbalancing data-driven machinery is subgroup discovery with quality functions for the first approach, statistical association tests with symbolic confirmation categories for the second, and a fully convolutional network with class-activation-map heatmaps for the third. The diagnostic circuit—a control loop alternating knowledge-graph queries and neural classifications—is what ties the symbolic and neural sides together in the neuro-symbolic case.

What would settle it

A user study in which expert clinicians or mechanics diagnose cases with the pruned rule base (about 2 rules per diagnosis) versus the unpruned one (about 11 rules) would settle it: if fewer rules do not produce faster, more accurate, or more confident human decisions, the central understandability claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The chapter's central claim is that knowledge-augmented learning—combining explicit domain knowledge with data-driven learning—is a practical route to anomaly detection and diagnosis that is both useful and human-understandable. It makes this case by reviewing three instantiations. First, subgroup discovery over features engineered from a knowledge graph uses a domain-defined KPI as the interestingness measure, so anomalies in industrial logistics appear as interpretable patterns such as price data gaps or inconsistent cost-center IDs. Second, diagnostic scoring systems can be learned from statistical associations and then pruned with domain knowledge, producing small rule bases (from about 11 rules per diagnosis down to about 2) with mean accuracy changing from 0.90 to 0.85. Third, a neuro-symbolic diagnostic circuit alternates between knowledge-graph queries and CNN classification of sensor signals, using heatmaps to explain each decision and recursively traversing causal links to output a fault path. The unifying message is that the knowledge graph is not a wrapper around a black box; it is a working memory that constrains the learner, receives the learner's evidence, and thereby makes the whole diagnostic process transparent.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that these methods improve understandability rests on the premise that a smaller rule base—fewer rules and fewer attribute values—is genuinely easier for a human to understand, and the paper's evidence is limited to those count-based proxies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Injecting domain knowledge into subgroup discovery turns anomaly detection into a targeted search for deviations from expert-defined expectations, surfacing issues such as shift-correlated bookings, empty storage groups, and inconsistent cost-center IDs.
  • Learning diagnostic scores from statistical associations can bootstrap a knowledge system from scratch; pruning with partition-class and abnormality knowledge cuts the average rule count per diagnosis from 10.93 to 2.12 and the attribute values used from 245.8 to 82.5, with mean accuracy dropping from 0.90 to 0.85.
  • In the neuro-symbolic framework, knowledge-graph-guided causal traversal plus CNN classification produces an explainable fault path, for example starting at component CB and cascading through CA to CD, and every measurement, heatmap, and prediction is stored back in the graph so the system accumulates diagnostic knowledge over time.
  • Because heatmaps can be compared across many cases, frequently recurring regions of interest can be cropped and specialized models trained for them, letting the diagnostic system improve on faults it has seen before.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: because the paper measures understandability by rule and attribute counts, a direct next test is a user study in which clinicians or mechanics work with the pruned versus unpruned rule bases, with decision time, error rate, and confidence as outcomes rather than counts.
  • Editorial extension: the logistics KPI idea should transfer to any setting with conservation-like expectations—energy balances, mass flows, financial reconciliations—where a domain-defined expected value of zero turns anomaly detection into a search for statistically unusual deviations.
  • Editorial extension: the neuro-symbolic loop that stores fault paths and heatmaps in a knowledge graph could be reused across vehicle models or domains if the causal structure is formalized, so learned regions of interest might become priors for new components; the paper does not test this reuse.
  • Editorial extension: the scoring-rule learning and the neuro-symbolic framework could be combined by using learned diagnostic scores to seed the knowledge graph's association weights, reducing the manual knowledge-acquisition bottleneck that the paper identifies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This chapter reviews three families of knowledge-augmented approaches for anomaly detection and diagnosis that the authors have developed in prior work: knowledge-augmented subgroup discovery for industrial logistics (Section 2), learning and refinement of diagnostic scoring systems with domain-knowledge constraints (Section 3), and a neuro-symbolic fault-diagnosis architecture combining knowledge graphs with CNN-based time-series classification and saliency explanations (Section 4). The central claim is that combining domain knowledge with data-driven learning improves understandability, transparency, and computational sensemaking, while retaining useful accuracy.

Significance. If the claims are accepted, the chapter provides a useful, clearly written synthesis of an important design pattern: injecting domain knowledge into interpretable models can reduce model complexity without sacrificing too much accuracy, and neuro-symbolic integration can make diagnosis more transparent. The chapter includes formal definitions of diagnostic scores, a concrete evaluation table, and open-source pointers for several implemented components, which is commendable for reproducibility. The main limitation is that the chapter's evidence base is almost entirely the authors' own prior publications, and the central understandability claim rests on a structural proxy rather than a direct measurement. The expository value of the chapter is real, but the general conclusions are broader than the presented evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5, Table 1] The claim that applying domain knowledge and pruning 'significantly reduce[s] the number of learned rules, so that the understandability of the rule base is improved' uses rule count and attribute-value count as proxies for human understandability. Table 1 reports a drop from 10.93±5.18 to 2.12±0.96 rules per diagnosis and from 245.80 to 82.50 attribute values, while accuracy falls from 0.90 to 0.85, but no comprehension, usability, or task-performance measurement with human users is provided. In addition, the statement that pruning 'removes potential spurious associations which can cause overfitting' is not supported by Table 1, since the accuracy decreases under pruning and no train/test gap analysis is reported. The chapter should either add a direct evaluation of understandability or explicitly reframe these as structural proxies and open hypotheses.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 5] The review explicitly confines itself to the authors' own prior articles ([47,48], [49-51], [52]) and then draws the general conclusion that 'knowledge-augmented learning enables the combination of knowledge-based and data-driven approaches' and enhances understandability and transparency. Because the evidence base is self-selected, the chapter cannot support a general claim about the field without risking circularity. The authors should either substantially broaden the reviewed literature, or explicitly narrow the conclusion to 'the approaches exemplified here' and discuss the threat to generality that comes from evaluating only one's own methods.
  3. [Section 4] The neuro-symbolic system is described in considerable architectural detail, but the chapter provides no quantitative evaluation of this system: no classification accuracy, no comparison with baselines, no user study, and no measured diagnostic benefit from the KG-guided search. Consequently, statements such as 'the system theoretically gets better at diagnosing errors that it has seen frequently in the past' and that the approach 'enhances the trustworthiness of the system' are unsupported in this chapter. Since this is a summary of [52], the authors should either report the evaluation results from that work, or clearly mark these as claims inherited from prior work that are not re-evaluated here, and temper the language accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The reference list contains duplicated citations, e.g., '[42,42–44]' and '[4, 80–84, 84–88]'; these should be cleaned up.
  2. [Section 2.2] The quality function qe(p) = n_e^p · (t_p − t_0) would benefit from an explicit statement that e is an exponent parameter and from a definition of the default share t_0 in the formal notation.
  3. [Table 1] The column header '∅SC' is unclear: the row with pruning reports 0.92, which is difficult to interpret as an 'average number of score categories' (a value below 1 seems to require explanation of the unit of measurement).
  4. [Section 3.5] There is a typographical artifact in 'S ONO CONSULT' (spacing) and the text would benefit from a consistent rendering of the system name, e.g., 'SonoConsult'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the chapter transparently reviews the authors' own prior published methods, and the main weakness is an unmeasured understandability proxy, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The chapter is an explicit review of the authors' prior articles, not an original derivation, so the self-citation concern is a matter of selection and evidence, not circularity. Section 1 states the scope: 'specifically considering the articles [47,48] ... [49-51] ... [52]'. Table 1, reproduced from the authors' earlier work [103], reports that adding partition-class/abnormality knowledge and pruning reduces the mean number of rules per diagnosis from 10.93+-5.18 to 2.12+-0.96 and attribute values from 245.80 to 82.50 while accuracy falls from 0.90 to 0.85. The chapter's inference in Section 3.5 that 'the understandability of the rule base is improved' by fewer rules is an interpretive proxy assumption; it is not a quantity predicted by a fitted parameter and does not reduce by construction to the inputs. The neuro-symbolic section describes a system and its architecture without quantitative evaluation, and the conclusions section explicitly lists 'a systematic evaluation' as future work, so no empirical prediction is made. The cited prior works are externally published, peer-reviewed studies with stated data and cross-validation settings, so citing them is real evidence rather than a load-bearing self-citation chain. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming pattern is present. Any concern about whether rule count is a valid measure of human understanding belongs to correctness and validity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the chapter introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on the assumptions embedded in the reviewed prior work: that knowledge graphs capture domain causality, that subgroup deviations flag anomalies, and that model size proxies interpretability.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Domain knowledge (causal relationships, diagnostic associations) can be formally represented in a knowledge graph and is accurate enough to guide diagnosis.
    Section 4.2 states the system is applicable when causal relationships between components 'can be formally described in a KG'. The automotive use case relies on expert-entered OBD knowledge.
  • domain assumption Deviations in subgroup target shares indicate meaningful anomalies.
    Section 2.2 defines quality functions comparing subgroup target share t_p to the default t_0; the logistics use case treats nonzero KPI deviations as potential issues.
  • domain assumption Rule-count reduction is a valid measure of improved understandability.
    Section 3.5 equates fewer rules with improved understandability without a user study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge-Augmented Explainable and Interpretable Learning for Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CB7Q2WMT

@misc{pith2026241200146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge-Augmented Explainable and Interpretable Learning for Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CB7Q2WMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00146}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge-augmented learning enables the combination of knowledge-based and data-driven approaches. For anomaly detection and diagnosis, understandability is typically an important factor, especially in high-risk areas. Therefore, explainability and interpretability are also major criteria in such contexts. This chapter focuses on knowledge-augmented explainable and interpretable learning to enhance understandability, transparency and ultimately computational sensemaking. We exemplify different approaches and methods in the domains of anomaly detection and diagnosis - from comparatively simple interpretable methods towards more advanced neuro-symbolic approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization [48] of the structure data graph (bill of materials information). Each node represents some material, with a node’s size proportional to its degree. The color of a node tends to indicate its price in a traffic light scheme from green to yellow and red, where more inexpensive (basic) materials are colored in green and more expensive materials range from yellow to red. We refer to [48] for a more detaile… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization [52]: Heatmap generation methods, cf. [52] for a more detailed discussion; the x-axis shows the respective sampling points, the y-axis the normalized voltage, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview (adapted from [52]) of the NEURO-SYMBOLIC architecture. The architecture of the diagnosis system with its various elements and their connec￾tions is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ontology [52] for capturing knowledge about On-Board Diagnostics (OBD). Expert Knowledge Modeled in the Ontology At the core of the knowledge captured in the ontology are the standardized Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs), which are a perfect example of what is meant by …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example [52]: SPARQL query to retrieve components for DTC ”P2563”. ANN-Based Oscillogram Classification A key idea of the developed diagnosis system revolves around sensor information of a certain type. Oscilloscope recordings are per￾formed on specific physical compon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time series classification and the applied ANN architecture, cf. [52] for more details. Since the main focus of [52] is not to propose a novel ANN architecture for binary classification (anomaly detection) of time series data, we compared several standard ar￾chitecture…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example [52]: Fault Isolation Result using the Causal Graph. using the initial anomalous component CD. After isolating the problem, the diagnosis is entered into the KG, along with a detailed record of all relevant information that led to it, in order to learn from it …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    A Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Anomaly Detection and Com- plex Fault Diagnosis Exemplified in the Automotive Domain

    Bohne T, Windler AKP, Atzmueller M. A Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Anomaly Detection and Com- plex Fault Diagnosis Exemplified in the Automotive Domain. In: Proceedings of the 12th Knowledge Capture Conference 2023. K-CAP ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Anomaly Detection: A Survey

    Chandola V , Banerjee A, Kumar V . Anomaly Detection: A Survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR). 2009;41:1-58

    2009

  3. [2]

    Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Review

    Pang G, Shen C, Cao L, Hengel A VD. Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 2021;54:1-38

    2021

  4. [3]

    Artificial Intelligence in Medical Diagnosis

    Szolovits P, Patil RS, Schwartz WB. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Diagnosis. Annals of internal medicine. 1988;108(1):80-7

    1988

  5. [4]

    Systematic Introduction to Expert Systems

    Puppe F. Systematic Introduction to Expert Systems. Heidelberg: Springer; 1993

    1993

  6. [5]

    Bridging Control and Artificial Intelligence Theories for Diagnosis: A Survey

    Trav ´e-Massuy`es L. Bridging Control and Artificial Intelligence Theories for Diagnosis: A Survey. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2014;27:1-16

    2014

  7. [6]

    Artificial Intelligence for Fault Diagnosis of Rotating Machinery: A Review

    Liu R, Yang B, Zio E, Chen X. Artificial Intelligence for Fault Diagnosis of Rotating Machinery: A Review. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2018;108:33-47

    2018

  8. [7]

    Machine Learning Approaches for Diagnostics and Prognostics of Industrial Systems Using Industrial Open Source Data: A Review

    Su H, Lee J. Machine Learning Approaches for Diagnostics and Prognostics of Industrial Systems Using Industrial Open Source Data: A Review. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Man- agement. 2024;15(2)

    2024

Show all 121 references
  1. [8]

    Expert Systems for Diagnosis and Maintenance: The State-of-the-Art

    Majstorovi ´c V . Expert Systems for Diagnosis and Maintenance: The State-of-the-Art. Computers in Industry. 1990;15(1-2):43-68

    1990

  2. [9]

    Residual Life of Technical Systems; Diagnosis, Prediction and Life Extension

    Reinertsen R. Residual Life of Technical Systems; Diagnosis, Prediction and Life Extension. Relia- bility Engineering & System Safety. 1996;54(1):23-34

    1996

  3. [10]

    Applications of Machine Learning to Machine Fault Diagnosis: A Review and Roadmap

    Lei Y , Yang B, Jiang X, Jia F, Li N, Nandi AK. Applications of Machine Learning to Machine Fault Diagnosis: A Review and Roadmap. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2020;138:106587

    2020

  4. [11]

    A Technical Framework and Roadmap of Embedded Diagnostics and Prognos- tics for Complex Mechanical Systems in Prognostics and Health Management Systems

    Chen Z, Yang Y , Hu Z. A Technical Framework and Roadmap of Embedded Diagnostics and Prognos- tics for Complex Mechanical Systems in Prognostics and Health Management Systems. IEEE Trans- actions on Reliability. 2012;61(2):314-22

    2012

  5. [12]

    Fault Diagnosis of Plant Systems using Immune Networks

    Ishiguro A, Watanabe Y , Uchikawa Y . Fault Diagnosis of Plant Systems using Immune Networks. In: Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Conference on MFI’94. Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems. IEEE; 1994. p. 34-42

    1994

  6. [13]

    Interval-Based Diagnosis of Biological Systems – a Powerful Tool for Highly Uncer- tain Anaerobic Digestion Processes

    Alcaraz-Gonz ´alez V , L ´opez-Ba˜nuelos RH, Steyer JP, M ´endez-Acosta HO, Gonz ´alez- ´Alvarez V , Pelayo-Ortiz C. Interval-Based Diagnosis of Biological Systems – a Powerful Tool for Highly Uncer- tain Anaerobic Digestion Processes. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water. 2012;40(9):941-9

    2012

  7. [14]

    Fault Diagnosis of Biological Systems Using Improved Machine Learning Technique

    Fezai R, Abodayeh K, Mansouri M, Nounou H, Nounou M. Fault Diagnosis of Biological Systems Using Improved Machine Learning Technique. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cyber- netics. 2021;12(2):515-28

    2021

  8. [15]

    Internet-Based Decision-Support Server for Acute Abdominal Pain

    Eich HP, Ohmann C. Internet-Based Decision-Support Server for Acute Abdominal Pain. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2000;20(1):23-36

    2000

  9. [16]

    HepatoConsult: A Knowledge-Based Second Opinion and Documentation System

    Buscher HP, Engler C, F ¨uhrer A, Kirschke S, Puppe F. HepatoConsult: A Knowledge-Based Second Opinion and Documentation System. Artif Intell Med. 2002;24(3):205-16

    2002

  10. [17]

    Application and Evaluation of a Medical Knowledge-System in Sonography (SonoConsult)

    Puppe F, Atzmueller M, Buscher G, Huettig M, L ¨uhrs H, Buscher HP. Application and Evaluation of a Medical Knowledge-System in Sonography (SonoConsult). In: Proc. ECAI. IOS; 2008. p. 683-7

    2008

  11. [18]

    Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead

    Rudin C. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2019;1(5):206-15

    2019

  12. [19]

    Declarative Aspects in Explicative Data Mining for Computational Sensemaking

    Atzmueller M. Declarative Aspects in Explicative Data Mining for Computational Sensemaking. In: Proc. International Conference on Declarative Programming (DECLARE). Springer; 2018. p. 97-114

    2018

  13. [20]

    On Explanation

    Roth-Berghofer TR, Richter MM. On Explanation. K ¨unstliche Intelligenz. 2008 May;22(2):5-7

    2008

  14. [21]

    The Mining and Analysis Continuum of Explaining Uncovered

    Atzmueller M, Roth-Berghofer T. The Mining and Analysis Continuum of Explaining Uncovered. In: Proc. Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXVII. SGAI 2010. Springer; 2010. p. 273-8

    2010

  15. [22]

    Explanation: A First Pass

    Schank RC. Explanation: A First Pass. In: Kolodner JL, Riesbeck CK, editors. Experience, Memory, and Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1986. p. 139-65

    1986

  16. [23]

    Explanation and Justification in Machine Learning: A Survey

    Biran O, Cotton C. Explanation and Justification in Machine Learning: A Survey. In: Proc. IJCAI Workshop on XAI; 2017. p. 8-13

    2017

  17. [24]

    Interpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges

    Molnar C, Casalicchio G, Bischl B. Interpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges. In: Proc. Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer; 2020. p. 417-31

    2020

  18. [25]

    Taxonomy and Survey of Interpretable Machine Learning Method

    Das S, Agarwal N, Venugopal D, Sheldon FT, Shiva S. Taxonomy and Survey of Interpretable Machine Learning Method. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI). IEEE

  19. [26]

    Interpretable Machine Learning: A Brief Survey From the Pre- dictive Maintenance Perspective

    V ollert S, Atzmueller M, Theissler A. Interpretable Machine Learning: A Brief Survey From the Pre- dictive Maintenance Perspective. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA 2021). IEEE; 2021. p. 1-8

    2021

  20. [27]

    Interpretable Machine Learning: Funda- mental Principles and 10 Grand Challenges

    Rudin C, Chen C, Chen Z, Huang H, Semenova L, Zhong C. Interpretable Machine Learning: Funda- mental Principles and 10 Grand Challenges. Stat Surveys. 2022;16:1-85

    2022

  21. [28]

    XAI - Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    Gunning D, Stefik M, Choi J, Miller T, Stumpf S, Yang GZ. XAI - Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Science Robotics. 2019;4:eaay7120

    2019

  22. [29]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges Toward Responsi- ble AI

    Barredo Arrieta A, D ´ıaz-Rodr´ıguez N, Del Ser J, Bennetot A, Tabik S, Barbado A, et al. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges Toward Responsi- ble AI. Information Fusion. 2020;58:82-115

    2020

  23. [30]

    A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning

    Burkart N, Huber MF. A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 2021;70:245-317

    2021

  24. [31]

    Subgroup Discovery

    Atzmueller M. Subgroup Discovery. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2015;5(1):35-49

    2015

  25. [32]

    On Cognitive Preferences and the Plausibility of Rule-Based Models

    F ¨urnkranz J, Kliegr T, Paulheim H. On Cognitive Preferences and the Plausibility of Rule-Based Models. Machine Learning. 2020;109(4):853-98

    2020

  26. [33]

    A Brief Overview of Rule Learning

    F ¨urnkranz J, Kliegr T. A Brief Overview of Rule Learning. In: International Symposium on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web. Springer; 2015. p. 54-69

    2015

  27. [34]

    Explainable Machine Learning for Scientific Insights and Discoveries

    Roscher R, Bohn B, Duarte MF, Garcke J. Explainable Machine Learning for Scientific Insights and Discoveries. IEEE Access. 2020;8:42200-16

    2020

  28. [35]

    Why Should I Trust You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Clas- sifier

    Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C. Why Should I Trust You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Clas- sifier. In: Proc. ACM SIGKDD. ACM; 2016. p. 1135-44

    2016

  29. [36]

    A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions

    Lundberg SM, Lee SI. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In: Proc. International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS’17. Curran Associates Inc.; 2017. p. 4768–4777

    2017

  30. [37]

    Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations

    Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C. Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations. In: Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI; 2018. p. 1527-35

    2018

  31. [38]

    Grad-CAM: Why Did You Say That? Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization

    Selvaraju RR, Das A, Vedantam R, Cogswell M, Parikh D, Batra D. Grad-CAM: Why Did You Say That? Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization. CoRR. 2016;abs/1610.02391

    2016 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanations

    Han T, Srinivas S, Lakkaraju H. Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2022;35:5256-68

    2022

  33. [40]

    Methods for Explaining Top-N Recommendations Through Subgroup Discovery

    Iferroudjene M, Lonjarret C, Robardet C, Plantevit M, Atzmueller M. Methods for Explaining Top-N Recommendations Through Subgroup Discovery. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2023;37(2):833-72

    2023

  34. [41]

    Explainable and Interpretable Machine Learning and Data Mining

    Atzmueller M, F ¨urnkranz J, Kliegr T, Schmid U. Explainable and Interpretable Machine Learning and Data Mining. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2024

    2024

  35. [42]

    Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: A Survey and Interpretation

    Besold TR, d’Avila Garcez AS, Bader S, Bowman H, Domingos PM, Hitzler P, et al. Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: A Survey and Interpretation. In: Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: The State of the Art. vol. 342 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applicati...

    2021

  36. [43]

    Neuro-Symbolic Approaches in Artificial Intelligence

    Hitzler P, Eberhart A, Ebrahimi M, Sarker MK, Zhou L. Neuro-Symbolic Approaches in Artificial Intelligence. National Science Review. 2022;9(6):nwac035

    2022

  37. [44]

    Machinery Fault Diagnosis Based on Deep Learning for Time Series Analysis and Knowledge Graphs

    Liu H, Ma R, Li D, Yan L, Ma Z. Machinery Fault Diagnosis Based on Deep Learning for Time Series Analysis and Knowledge Graphs. J Signal Process Syst. 2021;93:1433-55

    2021

  38. [45]

    Knowledge Graphs

    Hogan A, Blomqvist E, Cochez M, d’Amato C, Melo GD, Gutierrez C, et al. Knowledge Graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 2021;54:1-37

    2021

  39. [46]

    A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acqui- sition, and Applications

    Ji S, Pan S, Cambria E, Marttinen P, Yu PS. A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acqui- sition, and Applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems. 2021;33:494- 514

    2021

  40. [47]

    Mixed-Initiative Feature Engineering Using Knowledge Graphs

    Atzmueller M, Sternberg E. Mixed-Initiative Feature Engineering Using Knowledge Graphs. In: Proc. International Conference on Knowledge Capture. ACM; 2017. p. 1-4

    2017

  41. [48]

    Knowledge-Based Mining of Exceptional Patterns in Logistics Data: Approaches and Experiences in an Industry 4.0 Context

    Sternberg E, Atzmueller M. Knowledge-Based Mining of Exceptional Patterns in Logistics Data: Approaches and Experiences in an Industry 4.0 Context. In: Proc. International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. LNCS. Heidelberg: Springer; 2018. p. 67-77. Available...

    2018 doi

  42. [49]

    Semi-Automatic Learning of Simple Diagnostic Scores Utilizing Complexity Measures

    Atzmueller M, Baumeister J, Puppe F. Semi-Automatic Learning of Simple Diagnostic Scores Utilizing Complexity Measures. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2006;37:19-30

    2006

  43. [50]

    Conservative and Creative Strategies for the Refine- ment of Scoring Rules

    Baumeister J, Atzmueller M, Kluegl P, Puppe F. Conservative and Creative Strategies for the Refine- ment of Scoring Rules. In: Proc. International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Confer- ence. Palo Alto, CA, USA: AAAI Press; 2006. p. 408-13

    2006

  44. [51]

    Introspective Subgroup Analysis for Interactive Knowl- edge Refinement

    Atzmueller M, Baumeister J, Puppe F. Introspective Subgroup Analysis for Interactive Knowl- edge Refinement. In: Proc. International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS). AAAI; 2006. p. 402-7

    2006

  45. [53]

    Semi-Automatic Visual Subgroup Mining using VIKAMINE

    Atzmueller M, Puppe F. Semi-Automatic Visual Subgroup Mining using VIKAMINE. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 2005;11(11):1752-65

    2005

  46. [54]

    Pattern Mining: Current Chal- lenges and Opportunities

    Fournier-Viger P, Gan W, Wu Y , Nouioua M, Song W, Truong T, et al. Pattern Mining: Current Chal- lenges and Opportunities. In: International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applica- tions. Springer; 2022. p. 34-49

    2022

  47. [55]

    Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules

    Agrawal R, Srikant R. Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules. In: Proc. VLDB. Morgan Kaufmann; 1994. p. 487-99

    1994

  48. [56]

    An Algorithm for Multi-Relational Discovery of Subgroups

    Wrobel S. An Algorithm for Multi-Relational Discovery of Subgroups. In: Proc. European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (PKDD). Springer; 1997. p. 78-87

    1997

  49. [57]

    Generic Pattern Trees for Exhaustive Exceptional Model Mining

    Lemmerich F, Becker M, Atzmueller M. Generic Pattern Trees for Exhaustive Exceptional Model Mining. In: Proc. Proc. Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML/PKDD). Springer; 2012. p. 277-92

    2012

  50. [58]

    Exceptional Model Mining

    Duivesteijn W, Feelders AJ, Knobbe A. Exceptional Model Mining. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2016;30(1):47-98

    2016

  51. [59]

    Exceptional Contextual Sub- graph Mining

    Kaytoue M, Plantevit M, Zimmermann A, Bendimerad A, Robardet C. Exceptional Contextual Sub- graph Mining. Machine Learning. 2017;106(8):1171-211

    2017

  52. [60]

    MinerLSD: Efficient Mining of Local Patterns on Attributed Networks

    Atzmueller M, Soldano H, Santini G, Bouthinon D. MinerLSD: Efficient Mining of Local Patterns on Attributed Networks. Applied Network Science. 2019;4(43)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Mining Communities and Their Descriptions on At- tributed Graphs: A Survey

    Atzmueller M, G ¨unnemann S, Zimmermann A. Mining Communities and Their Descriptions on At- tributed Graphs: A Survey. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2021;35(3):661-87

    2021

  54. [62]

    A Case-Based Approach for Characterization and Analysis of Subgroup Patterns

    Atzmueller M, Puppe F. A Case-Based Approach for Characterization and Analysis of Subgroup Patterns. Journal of Applied Intelligence. 2008;28(3):210-21

    2008

  55. [63]

    VIKAMINE - Open-Source Subgroup Discovery, Pattern Mining, and Analytics

    Atzmueller M, Lemmerich F. VIKAMINE - Open-Source Subgroup Discovery, Pattern Mining, and Analytics. In: Proc. Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML/PKDD). vol. 7524 of LNCS. Springer; 2012. p. 842-5

    2012

  56. [64]

    Interactive Discovery of Interesting Subgroup Sets

    Dzyuba V , van Leeuwen M. Interactive Discovery of Interesting Subgroup Sets. In: Proc. International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis. Springer; 2013. p. 150-61

    2013

  57. [65]

    Semantic Subgroup Explanations

    Vavpetic A, Podpecan V , Lavrac N. Semantic Subgroup Explanations. Journal of Intelligent Informa- tion Systems. 2014;42(2):233-54

    2014

  58. [66]

    Learning Association Rules from Data through Domain Knowledge and Au- tomation

    Rauch J, Simunek M. Learning Association Rules from Data through Domain Knowledge and Au- tomation. In: Proc. RuleML. Springer; 2014. p. 266-80

    2014

  59. [67]

    Semantic Data Mining: A Survey of Ontology-based Approaches

    Dou D, Wang H, Liu H. Semantic Data Mining: A Survey of Ontology-based Approaches. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing. IEEE; 2015. p. 244-51

    2015

  60. [68]

    Semantic Data Mining in Ubiquitous Sensing: A Survey

    Nalepa GJ, Bobek S, Kutt K, Atzmueller M. Semantic Data Mining in Ubiquitous Sensing: A Survey. Sensors. 2021;21(13):4322

    2021

  61. [69]

    Big Data Analytics for Proactive Industrial Decision Support

    Atzmueller M, Kloepper B, Mawla HA, J ¨aschke B, Hollender M, Graube M, et al. Big Data Analytics for Proactive Industrial Decision Support. atp edition. 2016;58:62

    2016

  62. [70]

    Fast Exhaustive Subgroup Discovery with Numerical Target Concepts

    Lemmerich F, Atzmueller M, Puppe F. Fast Exhaustive Subgroup Discovery with Numerical Target Concepts. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2016;30:711-62

    2016

  63. [71]

    16.3: Subgroup Discovery

    Kl ¨osgen W. 16.3: Subgroup Discovery. In: Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Oxford University Press, New York; 2002. p. 354-61

    2002

  64. [72]

    From Local Patterns to Global Models: the LeGo Approach to Data Mining

    Knobbe A, Cr ´emilleux B, F ¨urnkranz J, Scholz M. From Local Patterns to Global Models: the LeGo Approach to Data Mining. From Local Patterns to Global Models: Proc ECML/PKDD LeGo Work- shop. 2008;8:1-16

    2008

  65. [73]

    Decision Support Through Subgroup Discovery: Three Case Studies and the Lessons Learned

    Lavrac N, Cestnik B, Gamberger D, Flach P. Decision Support Through Subgroup Discovery: Three Case Studies and the Lessons Learned. Machine Learning. 2004 October;57(1-2):115-43

    2004

  66. [74]

    Profiling Examiners using Intelligent Subgroup Mining

    Atzmueller M, Puppe F, Buscher HP. Profiling Examiners using Intelligent Subgroup Mining. In: Proc. 10th International Workshop on Intelligent Data Analysis in Medicine and Pharmacology (IDAMAP- 2005). Aberdeen, Scotland; 2005. p. 46-51

    2005

  67. [75]

    Actionable Knowledge

    Antonacopoulou EP. Actionable Knowledge. International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies. 2007

    2007

  68. [76]

    Multi-Interval Discretization of Continuous-Valued Attributes for Classifica- tion Learning

    Fayyad UM, Irani KB. Multi-Interval Discretization of Continuous-Valued Attributes for Classifica- tion Learning. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Uncertainty in AI. Morgan Kaufmann; 1993. p. 1022-7

    1993

  69. [77]

    CRISP-DM 1.0

    Chapman P, Clinton J, Kerber R, Khabaza T, Reinartz T, Shearer C, et al.. CRISP-DM 1.0. CRISP-DM Consortium; 2000

    2000

  70. [78]

    Mining Attributed Interaction Networks on Industrial Event Logs

    Atzmueller M, Kloepper B. Mining Attributed Interaction Networks on Industrial Event Logs. In: Proc. International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning. Heidelberg: Springer; 2018. p. 94-102

    2018

  71. [79]

    A Framework for Human-Centered Exploration of Com- plex Event Log Graphs

    Atzmueller M, Bloemheuvel S, Kloepper B. A Framework for Human-Centered Exploration of Com- plex Event Log Graphs. In: Proc. International Conference on Discovery Science (DS 2019). Heidel- berg: Springer; 2019. p. 335-50)

    2019

  72. [80]

    Building Expert Systems

    Hayes-Roth F, Waterman DA, Lenat DB. Building Expert Systems. London: Addison-Wesley; 1983

    1983

  73. [81]

    Knowledge Reuse Among Diagnostic Problem-Solving Methods in the Shell-Kit D3

    Puppe F. Knowledge Reuse Among Diagnostic Problem-Solving Methods in the Shell-Kit D3. Inter- national Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1998;49:627-49

    1998

  74. [82]

    Knowledge Engineering: Survey and Future Direc- tions

    Studer R, Fensel D, Decker S, Benjamins VR. Knowledge Engineering: Survey and Future Direc- tions. In: XPS-99: Knowledge-Based Systems – Survey and Future Directions. Proc. Biannual German Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems; 1999. p. 1-23

    1999

  75. [83]

    Knowledge-Driven Systems for Episodic Decision Support

    Baumeister J, Striffler A. Knowledge-Driven Systems for Episodic Decision Support. Knowledge- Based Systems. 2015;88:45-56

    2015

  76. [84]

    Knowledge-Based Fault Diagnosis in Industrial Internet of Things: A Survey

    Chi Y , Dong Y , Wang ZJ, Yu FR, Leung VC. Knowledge-Based Fault Diagnosis in Industrial Internet of Things: A Survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2022;9:12886-900

    2022

  77. [85]

    Real-Time Fault Diagnosis Using Knowledge-Based Expert System

    Nan C, Khan F, Iqbal MT. Real-Time Fault Diagnosis Using Knowledge-Based Expert System. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2008;86:55-71

    2008

  78. [86]

    Process Fault Diagnosis with Model- and Knowledge-Based Approaches: Advances and Opportunities

    Li W, Li H, Gu S, Chen T. Process Fault Diagnosis with Model- and Knowledge-Based Approaches: Advances and Opportunities. Control Engineering Practice. 2020;105:104637

    2020

  79. [87]

    Introduction to Knowledge Systems

    Stefik M. Introduction to Knowledge Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1995

    1995

  80. [88]

    Towards Adaptive Anomaly Detection and Root Cause Analysis by Automated Extraction of Knowledge from Risk Analyses

    Steenwinckel B, Heyvaert P, De Paepe D, Janssens O, Vanden Hautte S, Dimou A, et al. Towards Adaptive Anomaly Detection and Root Cause Analysis by Automated Extraction of Knowledge from Risk Analyses. In: Proc. International Semantic Sensor Networks Workshop. CEUR; 2018. p. 17-31

    2018

  81. [89]

    Machine Learning for Medical Diagnosis: History, State of the Art and Perspective

    Kononenko I. Machine Learning for Medical Diagnosis: History, State of the Art and Perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2001;23:89-109

    2001

  82. [90]

    A Data Mining Methodology and its Application to Semi- Automatic Knowledge Acquisition

    Klemettinen M, Mannila H, Toivonen H. A Data Mining Methodology and its Application to Semi- Automatic Knowledge Acquisition. In: Proc. International Conference on Database and Expert Sys- tems Applications (DEXA). IEEE; 1997. p. 670-7

    1997

  83. [91]

    Evaluation of Two Different Models of Semi-Automatic Knowl- edge Acquisition for the Medical Consultant System CADIAG-II/RHEUMA

    Leitich H, Adlassnig KP, Kolarz G. Evaluation of Two Different Models of Semi-Automatic Knowl- edge Acquisition for the Medical Consultant System CADIAG-II/RHEUMA. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2002;25:215-25

    2002

  84. [92]

    Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Optimized Medical Scoring Systems

    Ustun B, Rudin C. Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Optimized Medical Scoring Systems. Ma- chine Learning. 2016;102:349-91

    2016

  85. [93]

    Learning Optimized Risk Scores

    Ustun B, Rudin C. Learning Optimized Risk Scores. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2019;20(150):1-75

    2019

  86. [94]

    Knowledge Modeling: A Survey of Processes and Techniques

    Yun W, Zhang X, Li Z, Liu H, Han M. Knowledge Modeling: A Survey of Processes and Techniques. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2021;36:1686-720

    2021

  87. [95]

    Clinical Experiences with a Knowledge- Based System in Sonography (SonoConsult)

    Puppe F, Buscher G, Atzmueller M, Huettig M, Buscher HP. Clinical Experiences with a Knowledge- Based System in Sonography (SonoConsult). In: Professional Knowledge Management. No. 3782 in LNAI; 2005. p. 319—329

    2005

  88. [96]

    A Survey of Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Techniques—Part I: Fault Diagnosis with Model-Based and Signal-Based Approaches

    Gao Z, Cecati C, Ding SX. A Survey of Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Techniques—Part I: Fault Diagnosis with Model-Based and Signal-Based Approaches. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2015;62:3757-67

    2015

  89. [97]

    Knowledge Formalization Patterns

    Puppe F. Knowledge Formalization Patterns. In: Proc. Pacific Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW). Sydney, Australia; 2000. p. 1-10

    2000

  90. [98]

    Harry E Pople J. 5. In: Heuristic Methods for Imposing Structure on Ill-Structured Problems: The Structuring of Medical Diagnostics. Routledge; 1982. p. 119-90

    1982

  91. [99]

    INTERNIST-1, an Experimental Computer-Based Diagnostic Consul- tant for General Internal Medicine

    Miller RA, Pople HE, Myers J. INTERNIST-1, an Experimental Computer-Based Diagnostic Consul- tant for General Internal Medicine. New England Journal of Medicine. 1982;307:468-76

    1982

  92. [100]

    A Review of Evaluation Metrics in Machine Learning Algorithms

    Naidu G, Zuva T, Sibanda EM. A Review of Evaluation Metrics in Machine Learning Algorithms. In: Silhavy R, Silhavy P, editors. Artificial Intelligence Application in Networks and Systems. Cham: Springer; 2023. p. 15-25

    2023

  93. [101]

    Evaluation Metrics and Statistical Tests for Machine Learning

    Rainio O, Teuho J, Kl ´en R. Evaluation Metrics and Statistical Tests for Machine Learning. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):6086

    2024

  94. [102]

    Evaluation of two Strategies for Case-Based Diagnosis handling Multiple Faults

    Atzmueller M, Baumeister J, Puppe F. Evaluation of two Strategies for Case-Based Diagnosis handling Multiple Faults. In: Proc. Conference on Professional Knowledge Management (WM2003). vol. P-28 of LNI. Luzern, Switzerland: GI; 2003. p. 275-6

    2003

  95. [103]

    Subgroup Mining for Interactive Knowl- edge Refinement

    Atzmueller M, Baumeister J, Hemsing A, Richter EJ, Puppe F. Subgroup Mining for Interactive Knowl- edge Refinement. In: Proc. 10th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIME 05). LNAI

  96. [104]

    Rapid Knowledge Capture Using Subgroup Discovery with Incremental Refinement

    Atzmueller M, Baumeister J, Kl ¨ugl P, Puppe F. Rapid Knowledge Capture Using Subgroup Discovery with Incremental Refinement. In: Proc. International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP). New York, NY , USA: ACM Press; 2007. p. 31-8

    2007

  97. [105]

    INTEGRA: A Web-based Differential Diagnosis System Combining Multiple Knowledge Bases

    Papakonstantinou A, Kondylakis H, Marakakis E. INTEGRA: A Web-based Differential Diagnosis System Combining Multiple Knowledge Bases. In: Proc. International Conference on Pervasive Tech- nologies Related to Assistive Environments. ACM; 2020. p. 1-6

    2020

  98. [106]

    A Diagnostic Expert System for Structured Reports, Quality Assessment, and Training of Residents in Sonography

    Huettig M, Buscher G, Menzel T, Scheppach W, Puppe F, Buscher HP. A Diagnostic Expert System for Structured Reports, Quality Assessment, and Training of Residents in Sonography. Medizinische Klinik. 2004;99(3):117-22

    2004

  99. [107]

    A Brief Survey of Visual Saliency Detection

    Ullah I, Jian M, Hussain S, Guo J, Yu H, Wang X, et al. A Brief Survey of Visual Saliency Detection. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2020;79:34605-45

    2020

  100. [108]

    A Survey of Class Activation Mapping for the Interpretability of Convolution Neural Networks

    He M, Li B, Sun S. A Survey of Class Activation Mapping for the Interpretability of Convolution Neural Networks. In: Proc. ICSINC. Springer; 2022. p. 399-407

    2022

  101. [109]

    Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization

    Selvaraju RR, Cogswell M, Das A, Vedantam R, Parikh D, Batra D. Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). IEEE; 2017. p. 618-26

    2017

  102. [110]

    Human-Computer Interaction and Knowledge Discovery (HCI-KDD): What is the Ben- efit of Bringing Those Two Fields to Work Together? In: Proc

    Holzinger A. Human-Computer Interaction and Knowledge Discovery (HCI-KDD): What is the Ben- efit of Bringing Those Two Fields to Work Together? In: Proc. CD-ARES. Springer; 2013. p. 319-28

    2013

  103. [111]

    Use HiResCAM Instead of Grad-CAM for Faithful Explanations of Convolu- tional Neural Networks

    Draelos RL, Carin L. Use HiResCAM Instead of Grad-CAM for Faithful Explanations of Convolu- tional Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:201108891. 2020

    2020

  104. [112]

    Grad-CAM++: Generalized Gradient- Based Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networks

    Chattopadhay A, Sarkar A, Howlader P, Balasubramanian VN. Grad-CAM++: Generalized Gradient- Based Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networks. In: Proc. W ACV . IEEE; 2018. p. 839-47

    2018

  105. [113]

    Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Expla- nations for Convolutional Neural Networks

    Wang H, Wang Z, Du M, Yang F, Zhang Z, Ding S, et al. Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Expla- nations for Convolutional Neural Networks. In: Proc. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. IEEE; 2020. p. 24-5

    2020

  106. [114]

    SmoothGrad: Removing Noise by Adding Noise

    Smilkov D, Thorat N, Kim B, Vi ´egas F, Wattenberg M. SmoothGrad: Removing Noise by Adding Noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:170603825. 2017

    2017

  107. [115]

    LayerCAM: Exploring Hierarchical Class Activation Maps for Localization

    Jiang P, Zhang C, Hou Q, Cheng M, Wei Y . LayerCAM: Exploring Hierarchical Class Activation Maps for Localization. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2021;30:5875-88

    2021

  108. [116]

    What Do You See? Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Interpretability Through Neural Backdoors

    Lin YS, Lee WC, Celik ZB. What Do You See? Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Interpretability Through Neural Backdoors. In: Proc. ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM; 2021. p. 1027-35

    2021

  109. [117]

    Sensible AI: Re-imagining Interpretability and Explainability Using Sensemaking Theory

    Kaur H, Adar E, Gilbert E, Lampe C. Sensible AI: Re-imagining Interpretability and Explainability Using Sensemaking Theory. In: Proc. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM; 2022. p. 702-14

    2022

  110. [118]

    The Third AI Summer: AAAI Robert S

    Kautz HA. The Third AI Summer: AAAI Robert S. Engelmore Memorial Lecture. AI Magazine. 2022;43:93-104

    2022

  111. [119]

    Time Series Classification from Scratch with Deep Neural Networks: A Strong Baseline

    Wang Z, Yan W, Oates T. Time Series Classification from Scratch with Deep Neural Networks: A Strong Baseline. In: Proc. IJCNN. IEEE; 2017. p. 1578-85

    2017

  112. [2023]

    p. 35–43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587259.3627546

  113. [3581]

    Heidelberg: Springer; 2005. p. 453-62

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.