Making deep neural networks right for the right scientific reasons by interacting with their explanations

Deep neural networks have demonstrated excellent performances in many real-world applications. Unfortunately, they may show Clever Hans-like behaviour (making use of confounding factors within datasets) to achieve high performance. In this work we introduce the novel learning setting of explanatory interactive learning and illustrate its benefits on a plant phenotyping research task. Explanatory interactive learning adds the scientist into the training loop, who interactively revises the original model by providing feedback on its explanations. Our experimental results demonstrate that explanatory interactive learning can help to avoid Clever Hans moments in machine learning and encourages (or discourages, if appropriate) trust in the underlying model. Deep learning approaches can show excellent performance but still have limited practical use if they learn to predict based on confounding factors in a dataset, for instance text labels in the corner of images. By using an explanatory interactive learning approach, with a human expert in the loop during training, it becomes possible to avoid predictions based on confounding factors.

[1]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Toward Optimal Active Learning through Sampling Estimation of Error Reduction , 2001, ICML.

[2]  Daphne Koller,et al.  Support Vector Machine Active Learning with Applications to Text Classification , 2000, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Toward Optimal Active Learning through Monte Carlo Estimation of Error Reduction , 2001, ICML 2001.

[4]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[5]  Jianguo Zhang,et al.  The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge , 2006 .

[6]  Rich Caruana,et al.  Model compression , 2006, KDD '06.

[7]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  The 2005 PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge , 2005, MLCW.

[8]  R. Nowak,et al.  Upper and Lower Error Bounds for Active Learning , 2006 .

[9]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Nonmyopic active learning of Gaussian processes: an exploration-exploitation approach , 2007, ICML '07.

[10]  Christine D. Piatko,et al.  Using “Annotator Rationales” to Improve Machine Learning for Text Categorization , 2007, NAACL.

[11]  J. Simpson Psychological Foundations of Trust , 2007 .

[12]  Ulrike von Luxburg,et al.  A tutorial on spectral clustering , 2007, Stat. Comput..

[13]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Visualizing Data using t-SNE , 2008 .

[14]  Li Fei-Fei,et al.  ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database , 2009, CVPR.

[15]  Natalie de Souza High-throughput phenotyping , 2009, Nature Methods.

[16]  Maria-Florina Balcan,et al.  The true sample complexity of active learning , 2010, Machine Learning.

[17]  Carla E. Brodley,et al.  The Constrained Weight Space SVM: Learning with Ranked Features , 2011, ICML.

[18]  Burr Settles,et al.  Closing the Loop: Fast, Interactive Semi-Supervised Annotation With Queries on Features and Instances , 2011, EMNLP.

[19]  A. Thomaz,et al.  Mixed-Initiative Active Learning , 2012 .

[20]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  Active Imitation Learning via Reduction to I.I.D. Active Learning , 2012, AAAI Fall Symposium: Robots Learning Interactively from Human Teachers.

[21]  Burr Settles,et al.  Active Learning , 2012, Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.

[22]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  Trust in Automation , 2013, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[23]  Steve Hanneke,et al.  Theory of Disagreement-Based Active Learning , 2014, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[24]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context , 2014, ECCV.

[25]  Esther Lau Plant genomics: High-throughput phenotyping of rice growth traits , 2014, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[26]  Esther Lau Microbial genetics: Selective killing using programmable Cas9 , 2014, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[27]  Weng-Keen Wong,et al.  Principles of Explanatory Debugging to Personalize Interactive Machine Learning , 2015, IUI.

[28]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Coactive Learning , 2015, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[29]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Probabilistic machine learning and artificial intelligence , 2015, Nature.

[30]  Masooda Bashir,et al.  Trust in Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[31]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[32]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects , 2015, Science.

[33]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , 2014, ICLR.

[34]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  An unexpected unity among methods for interpreting model predictions , 2016, ArXiv.

[35]  Bolei Zhou,et al.  Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localization , 2015, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[36]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[37]  Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju,et al.  Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).

[38]  Tony P. Pridmore,et al.  Deep machine learning provides state-of-the-art performance in image-based plant phenotyping , 2016, bioRxiv.

[39]  Osbert Bastani,et al.  Interpreting Blackbox Models via Model Extraction , 2017, ArXiv.

[40]  T. Pridmore,et al.  Plant Phenomics, From Sensors to Knowledge , 2017, Current Biology.

[41]  Andrew Slavin Ross,et al.  Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanations , 2017, IJCAI.

[42]  Demis Hassabis,et al.  Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge , 2017, Nature.

[43]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Deep Bayesian Active Learning with Image Data , 2017, ICML.

[44]  Roland Vollgraf,et al.  Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms , 2017, ArXiv.

[45]  Sriraam Natarajan,et al.  Human-Guided Learning for Probabilistic Logic Models , 2018, Front. Robot. AI.

[46]  Moritz Körber,et al.  Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation , 2018, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.

[47]  Emily Chen,et al.  How do Humans Understand Explanations from Machine Learning Systems? An Evaluation of the Human-Interpretability of Explanation , 2018, ArXiv.

[48]  Been Kim,et al.  Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps , 2018, NeurIPS.

[49]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Short-Term Satisfaction and Long-Term Coverage: Understanding How Users Tolerate Algorithmic Exploration , 2018, WSDM.

[50]  Lalana Kagal,et al.  Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning , 2018, 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA).

[51]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidence , 2018, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[52]  Marcus A. Badgeley,et al.  Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: A cross-sectional study , 2018, PLoS medicine.

[53]  Marcus A. Badgeley,et al.  Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning models , 2018, ArXiv.

[54]  Marcus A. Badgeley,et al.  Deep learning predicts hip fracture using confounding patient and healthcare variables , 2018, npj Digital Medicine.

[55]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognition , 2018 .

[56]  Alexander Binder,et al.  Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn , 2019, Nature Communications.

[57]  Wojciech Samek,et al.  Analyzing ImageNet with Spectral Relevance Analysis: Towards ImageNet un-Hans'ed , 2019, ArXiv.

[58]  D. Erhan,et al.  A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks , 2018, NeurIPS.

[59]  Larsson Omberg,et al.  A Permutation Approach to Assess Confounding in Machine Learning Applications for Digital Health , 2019, KDD.

[60]  Kristian Kersting,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative phenotyping of disease resistance of crops by hyperspectral sensors: seamless interlocking of phytopathology, sensors, and machine learning is needed! , 2019, Current opinion in plant biology.

[61]  Frederick Liu,et al.  Incorporating Priors with Feature Attribution on Text Classification , 2019, ACL.

[62]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blame , 2019, NeurIPS.

[63]  Pascal Sturmfels,et al.  Learning Explainable Models Using Attribution Priors , 2019, ArXiv.

[64]  Hongxia Jin,et al.  Taking a HINT: Leveraging Explanations to Make Vision and Language Models More Grounded , 2019, 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).

[65]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead , 2018, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[66]  Tatsuya Harada,et al.  Learning to Explain With Complemental Examples , 2018, 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[67]  Farid Melgani,et al.  Computer vision-based phenotyping for improvement of plant productivity: a machine learning perspective , 2018, GigaScience.

[68]  Kristian Kersting,et al.  Explanatory Interactive Machine Learning , 2019, AIES.

[69]  Franco Turini,et al.  A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models , 2018, ACM Comput. Surv..

[70]  Oliver Hinz,et al.  How and What Can Humans Learn from Being in the Loop? , 2020, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.