REVIEW 1 cited by
Rashomon Sets for Prototypical-Part Networks: Editing Interpretable Models in Real-Time
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
Rashomon Sets for Prototypical-Part Networks: Editing Interpretable Models in Real-Time
read the original abstract
Interpretability is critical for machine learning models in high-stakes settings because it allows users to verify the model's reasoning. In computer vision, prototypical part models (ProtoPNets) have become the dominant model type to meet this need. Users can easily identify flaws in ProtoPNets, but fixing problems in a ProtoPNet requires slow, difficult retraining that is not guaranteed to resolve the issue. This problem is called the "interaction bottleneck." We solve the interaction bottleneck for ProtoPNets by simultaneously finding many equally good ProtoPNets (i.e., a draw from a "Rashomon set"). We show that our framework - called Proto-RSet - quickly produces many accurate, diverse ProtoPNets, allowing users to correct problems in real time while maintaining performance guarantees with respect to the training set. We demonstrate the utility of this method in two settings: 1) removing synthetic bias introduced to a bird identification model and 2) debugging a skin cancer identification model. This tool empowers non-machine-learning experts, such as clinicians or domain experts, to quickly refine and correct machine learning models without repeated retraining by machine learning experts.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods
Explainable AI research should prioritize definitions, properties, evaluations, and actionability over new ad-hoc methods, on evidence from 617 papers and 34 practitioners.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.