Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 6/2019

13.05.2019

Explainability in human–agent systems

verfasst von: Avi Rosenfeld, Ariella Richardson

Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper presents a taxonomy of explainability in human–agent systems. We consider fundamental questions about the Why, Who, What, When and How of explainability. First, we define explainability, and its relationship to the related terms of interpretability, transparency, explicitness, and faithfulness. These definitions allow us to answer why explainability is needed in the system, whom it is geared to and what explanations can be generated to meet this need. We then consider when the user should be presented with this information. Last, we consider how objective and subjective measures can be used to evaluate the entire system. This last question is the most encompassing as it will need to evaluate all other issues regarding explainability.
Nächster Artikel Norm emergence in multiagent systems: a viewpoint paper

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
Literatur
1.
Abdul, A., Vermeulen, J., Wang, D., Lim, B. Y., & Kankanhalli, M. (2018). Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 582:1–582:18).
2.
Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Adam, F. (2008). Encyclopedia of decision making and decision support technologies (Vol. 2). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
4.
Ahmad, M. A., Teredesai, A., & Eckert, C. (2018). Interpretable machine learning in healthcare. In IEEE international conference on healthcare informatics (ICHI) (pp. 447–447).
5.
Alvarez-Melis, D., & Jaakkola, T. S. (2018). Towards robust interpretability with self-explaining neural networks. In CoRR. arXiv:​1806.​07538.
6.
Amir, O., & Gal, K. (2013). Plan recognition and visualization in exploratory learning environments. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 3(3), 16.
7.
Arbatli, A. D., & Levent Akin, H. (1997). Rule extraction from trained neural networks using genetic algorithms. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 30(3), 1639–1648.MATH
8.
Augasta, M. G., & Kathirvalavakumar, T. (2012). Reverse engineering the neural networks for rule extraction in classification problems. Neural Processing Letters, 35(2), 131–150.
9.
Azaria, A., Rabinovich, Z., Goldman, C. V., & Kraus, S. (2015). Strategic information disclosure to people with multiple alternatives. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 5(4), 64.
10.
Azaria, A., Richardson, A., & Kraus, S. (2014). An agent for the prospect presentation problem. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 989–996). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
11.
Baehrens, D., Schroeter, T., Harmeling, S., Kawanabe, M., Hansen, K., & Müller, K.-R. (2010). How to explain individual classification decisions. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 1803–1831.MathSciNetMATH
12.
Bagley, S. C., White, H., & Golomb, B. A. (2001). Logistic regression in the medical literature: Standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(10), 979–985.
13.
Barrett, S., Rosenfeld, A., Kraus, S., & Stone, P. (2017). Making friends on the fly: Cooperating with new teammates. Artificial Intelligence, 242, 132–171.MathSciNetMATH
14.
Bellazzi, R., & Zupan, B. (2008). Predictive data mining in clinical medicine: Current issues and guidelines. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(2), 81–97.
15.
Bien, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2011). Prototype selection for interpretable classification. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 5, 2403–2424.MathSciNetMATH
16.
Biran, O., & Cotton, C. (2017). Explanation and justification in machine learning: A survey. In IJCAI-17 workshop on explainable AI (XAI).
17.
Boz, O. (2002). Extracting decision trees from trained neural networks. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 456–461).
18.
Brooke, J., et al. (1996). SUS—A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.
19.
Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., & Elhadad, N. (2015). Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1721–1730).
20.
Chen, J. Y., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., & Barnes, M. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency. Technical report, Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground MD Human Research and Engineering Directorate.
21.
Cheng, J., & Greiner, R. (1999). Comparing Bayesian network classifiers. In Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 101–108).
22.
Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., & Mcculloch, R. E. (1998). Making sense of a forest of trees. In Proceedings of the 30th symposium on the interface (pp. 84–92).
23.
Clancey, W. J. (1983). The epistemology of a rule-based expert system—A framework for explanation. Artificial Intelligence, 20(3), 215–251.
24.
Clancey, W. J., & Letsinger, R. (1982). NEOMYCIN: Reconfiguring a rule-based expert system for application to teaching. Stanford: Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.
25.
Clark, P., & Niblett, T. (1989). The CN2 induction algorithm. Machine Learning, 3(4), 261–283.
26.
Corchado, J. M., & Laza, R. (2003). Constructing deliberative agents with case-based reasoning technology. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(12), 1227–1241.
27.
Cortez, P., & Embrechts, M. J. (2013). Using sensitivity analysis and visualization techniques to open black box data mining models. Information Sciences, 225, 1–17.
28.
Cox, M. T., & Raja, A. (2011). Metareasoning: Thinking about thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29.
Craven, M. W., & Shavlik, J. W. (1994). Using sampling and queries to extract rules from trained neural networks. In Machine learning proceedings 1994 (pp. 37–45).
30.
Craven, M. W., & Shavlik, J. W. (1995). Extracting tree-structured representations of trained networks. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on neural information processing systems, NIPS’95 (pp. 24–30). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Domingos, P. (1998). Knowledge discovery via multiple models. Intelligent Data Analysis, 2(3), 187–202.
35.
Doran, D., Schulz, S., & Besold, T. R. (2017). What does explainable AI really mean? A new conceptualization of perspectives. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on comprehensibility and explanation in AI and ML.
36.
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1702.​08608.
37.
Dreiseitl, S., & Ohno-Machado, L. (2002). Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: A methodology review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 35(5–6), 352–359.
38.
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012). Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference (pp. 214–226).
39.
Fong, R. C., & Vedaldi, A. (2017). Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation. In IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV) (pp. 3449–3457).
40.
41.
Freitas, A. A. (2014). Comprehensible classification models: A position paper. SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 15(1), 1–10.
42.
Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29, 1189–1232.MathSciNetMATH
43.
44.
Garfinkel, S., Matthews, J., Shapiro, S. S., & Smith, J. M. (2017). Toward algorithmic transparency and accountability. Communications of the ACM, 60(9), 5–5.
45.
Gelderman, M. (1998). The relation between user satisfaction, usage of information systems and performance. Information & Management, 34(1), 11–18.
46.
Gilbert, N. (1989). Explanation and dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 4(3), 235–247.
47.
Gilpin, L. H., Bau, D., Yuan, B. Z., Bajwa, A., Specter, M., & Kagal, L. (2018). Explaining explanations: An approach to evaluating interpretability of machine learning. In CoRR. arXiv:​1806.​00069.
48.
Goldstein, A., Kapelner, A., Bleich, J., & Pitkin, E. (2015). Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 24(1), 44–65.MathSciNet
49.
Goodrich, M. A., Olsen, D. R., Crandall, J. W., & Palmer, T. J. (2001). Experiments in adjustable autonomy. In Proceedings of IJCAI workshop on autonomy, delegation and control: Interacting with intelligent agents (pp. 1624–1629). Seattle, WA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence Press.
50.
Gregor, S., & Benbasat, I. (1999). Explanations from intelligent systems: Theoretical foundations and implications for practice. MIS Quarterly, 23, 497–530.
51.
Grudin, J. (1989). The case against user interface consistency. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1164–1173.
52.
Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2018). A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 93:1–93:42.
53.
Gunning, D. (2017). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Arlington: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
54.
Guo, C., & Zhang, L. (2010). A novel multiresolution spatiotemporal saliency detection model and its applications in image and video compression. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 19(1), 185–198.MathSciNetMATH
55.
Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2003). An introduction to variable and feature selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1157–1182.MATH
56.
Hall, M. A. (1999). Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. Technical report, The University of Waikato.
57.
58.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
59.
Hendricks, L. A., Akata, Z., Rohrbach, M., Donahue, J., Schiele, B., & Darrell, T. (2016). Generating visual explanations. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) (pp. 3–19).
60.
Hoffman, R. R., & Klein, G. (2017). Explaining explanation, part 1: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 3, 68–73.
61.
Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B. (2017). What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain? arXiv preprint arXiv:​1712.​09923.
62.
Hooker, G. (2004). Discovering additive structure in black box functions. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 575–580).
63.
Hu, R., Andreas, J., Darrell, T., & Saenko, K. (2018). Explainable neural computation via stack neural module networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) (pp. 53–69).
64.
Jennings, N. R., Moreau, L., Nicholson, D., Ramchurn, S., Roberts, S., Rodden, T., et al. (2014). Human–agent collectives. Communications of the ACM, 57(12), 80–88.
65.
Johansson, U., & Niklasson, L. (2009). Evolving decision trees using oracle guides. In IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and data mining (pp. 238–244).
66.
Kattan, M. W., Beck, J. R., Bratko, I., Zupan, B., & Demsar, J. (2000). Machine learning for survival analysis: A case study on recurrence of prostate cancer. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 20(1), 59–75.
67.
Kahramanli, H., & Allahverdi, N. (2009). Rule extraction from trained adaptive neural networks using artificial immune systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 1513–1522.
68.
Katafigiotis, I., Sabler, I., Heifetz, E., Rosenfeld, A., Sfoungaristos, S., Lorber, A., et al. (2018). “Stone-less” or negative ureteroscopy: A reality in the endourologic routine or avoidable source of frustration? Estimating the risk factors for a negative ureteroscopy. Journal of Endourology, 32(9), 825–830.
69.
Kim, B., Khanna, R., & Koyejo, O. O. (2016). Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. V. Luxburg, I. Guyon, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (pp. 2280–2288). Curran Associates, Inc.
70.
Kim, B., Rudin, C., & Shah, J. A. (2014). The Bayesian case model: A generative approach for case-based reasoning and prototype classification. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (pp. 1952–1960). Curran Associates, Inc.
71.
Kim, J., Rohrbach, A., Darrell, T., Canny, J., & Akata, Z. (2018). Textual explanations for self-driving vehicles. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) (pp. 563–578).
72.
Kleinerman, A., Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2018). Providing explanations for recommendations in reciprocal environments. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 22–30). ACM.
73.
Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., Gantner, Z., Soncu, H., & Newell, C. (2012). Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(4–5), 441–504.
74.
Kofod-Petersen, A., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2008). Explanatory capabilities in the creek knowledge-intensive case-based reasoner. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 173, 28.
75.
Kononenko, I. (1993). Inductive and Bayesian learning in medical diagnosis. Applied Artificial Intelligence an International Journal, 7(4), 317–337.
76.
Kononenko, I. (1999). Explaining classifications for individual instances. In Proceedings of IJCAI’99 (pp. 722–726).
77.
Krause, J., Perer, A., & Ng, K. (2016). Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of black-box machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 5686–5697).
78.
Krishnan, R., Sivakumar, G., & Bhattacharya, P. (1999). Extracting decision trees from trained neural networks. Pattern Recognition, 32(12), 1999–2009.
79.
Kwon, O. B., & Sadeh, N. (2004). Applying case-based reasoning and multi-agent intelligent system to context-aware comparative shopping. Decision Support Systems, 37(2), 199–213.
80.
Langley, P., Meadows, B., Sridharan, M., & Choi, D. (2017). Explainable agency for intelligent autonomous systems. In AAAI (pp. 4762–4764).
81.
Last, M., & Maimon, O. (2004). A compact and accurate model for classification. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16(2), 203–215.
82.
Lavrač, N. (1999). Selected techniques for data mining in medicine. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 16(1), 3–23.MathSciNet
83.
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.
84.
Lei, T., Barzilay, R., & Jaakkola, T. (2016). Rationalizing neural predictions. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 107–117).
85.
Letham, B., Rudin, C., McCormick, T. H., Madigan, D., et al. (2015). Interpretable classifiers using rules and bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(3), 1350–1371.MathSciNetMATH
86.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Sage.
87.
88.
Lombrozo, T. (2007). Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology, 55(3), 232–257.
89.
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., & Gehrke, J. (2012). Intelligible models for classification and regression. In The 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 150–158).
90.
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., Gehrke, J., & Hooker, G. (2013). Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 623–631).
91.
Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st international conference on neural information processing systems (pp. 4768–4777). Curran Associates Inc.
92.
Michalski, R. S., & Kaufman, K. A. (2001). Learning patterns in noisy data: The AQ approach. In G. Paliouras, V. Karkaletsis, & C. D. Spyropoulos (Eds.), Machine learning and its applications. ACAI 1999. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2049). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
93.
94.
Mohamed, M. H. (2011). Rules extraction from constructively trained neural networks based on genetic algorithms. Neurocomputing, 74(17), 3180–3192.
95.
Mohseni, S., & Ragan, E. D. (2018). A human-grounded evaluation benchmark for local explanations of machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1801.​05075.
96.
Montavon, G., Samek, W., & Muller, K. (2018). Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. Digital Signal Processing: A Review Journal, 73, 1–15, 2.MathSciNet
97.
Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.
98.
Murphy, P. M., & Pazzani, M. J. (1993). Exploring the decision forest: An empirical investigation of Occam’s razor in decision tree induction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, 257–275.MATH
99.
Ortony, A., & Partridge, D. (1987). Surprisingness and expectation failure: What’s the difference? In IJCAI (pp. 106–108).
100.
Ross Quinlan, J. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1), 81–106.
101.
Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., & Dignum, F. (2003). Towards interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 773–780).
102.
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). Why should I trust you? Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1135–1144).
103.
Richardson, A., Kraus, S., Weiss, P. L., & Rosenblum, S. (2008). Coach-cumulative online algorithm for classification of handwriting deficiencies. In AAAI (pp. 1725–1730).
104.
Rosenfeld, A., Agmon, N., Maksimov, O., & Kraus, S. (2017). Intelligent agent supporting human-multi-robot team collaboration. Artificial Intelligence, 252, 211–231.MathSciNetMATH
105.
Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2016). Strategical argumentative agent for human persuasion. ECAI, 16, 320–329.
106.
Rosenfeld, A., Bareket, Z., Goldman, C. V., Kraus, S., LeBlanc, D. J., & Tsimhoni, O. (2012). Learning driver’s behavior to improve the acceptance of adaptive cruise control. In IAAI.
107.
Rosenfeld, A., Bareket, Z., Goldman, C. V., LeBlanc, D. J., & Tsimhoni, O. (2015). Learning drivers’ behavior to improve adaptive cruise control. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19(1), 18–31.
108.
Rosenfeld, A., Sehgal, V., Graham, D. G., Banks, M. R., Haidry, R. J., & Lovat, L. B. (2014). Using data mining to help detect dysplasia: Extended abstract. In IEEE international conference on software science, technology and engineering (pp. 65–66).
109.
Rosenfeld, A., Zuckerman, I., Segal-Halevi, E., Drein, O., & Kraus, S. (2016). NegoChat-A: A chat-based negotiation agent with bounded rationality. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 30(1), 60–81.
110.
Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 61–86.
111.
Rudin, C. (2014). Algorithms for interpretable machine learning. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1519–1519).
112.
Saeys, Y., Inza, I., & Larrañaga, P. (2007). A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics, 23(19), 2507–2517.
113.
Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human–robot cooperation and trust. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (pp. 141–148).
114.
Saltelli, A. (2002). Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 579–590.
115.
Samek, W., Wiegand, T., & Müller, K.-R. (2017). Explainable artificial intelligence: Understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1708.​08296.
116.
Scerri, P., Pynadath, D., & Tambe, M. (2001). Adjustable autonomy in real-world multi-agent environments. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 300–307). ACM.
117.
Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation: A first pass. In Experience, memory, and reasoning (pp. 139–165). Yale University.
118.
Schetinin, V., Fieldsend, J. E., Partridge, D., Coats, T. J., Krzanowski, W. J., Everson, R. M., et al. (2007). Confident interpretation of Bayesian decision tree ensembles for clinical applications. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 11(3), 312–319.
119.
Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D., et al. (2017). Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In ICCV (pp. 618–626).
120.
Sheh, R. (2017). Why did you do that? Explainable intelligent robots. In AAAI workshop on human–aware artificial intelligence.
121.
Shneiderman, B. (2002). Promoting universal usability with multi-layer interface design. ACM SIGCAPH Computers and the Physically Handicapped, 73–74, 1–8.
122.
Shrot, T., Rosenfeld, A., Golbeck, J., & Kraus, S. (2014). Crisp: An interruption management algorithm based on collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3035–3044).
123.
Shwartz-Ziv, R., & Tishby, N. (2017). Opening the black box of deep neural networks via information. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1703.​00810.
124.
Sierhuis, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Acquisti, A., Van Hoof, R., Jeffers, R., & Uszok, A. (2003). Human–agent teamwork and adjustable autonomy in practice. In Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on artificial intelligence, robotics and automation in space (I-SAIRAS).
125.
Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A. (2013). Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps. In CoRR. arXiv:​1312.​6034.
126.
Sørmo, F., & Cassens, J. (2004). Explanation goals in case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the ECCBR 2004 workshops, number 142-04 (pp. 165–174).
127.
Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2005). Explanation in case-based reasoning-perspectives and goals. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24(2), 109–143.MATH
128.
Stein, S., Gerding, E. H., Nedea, A., Rosenfeld, A., & Jennings, N. R. (2017). Market interfaces for electric vehicle charging. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 59, 175–227.
129.
Strumbelj, E., & Kononenko, I. (2010). An efficient explanation of individual classifications using game theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 1–18.MathSciNetMATH
130.
Tan, H. F., Hooker, G., & Wells, M. T. (2016). Tree space prototypes: Another look at making tree ensembles interpretable. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1611.​07115.
131.
Tolomei, G., Silvestri, F., Haines, A., & Lalmas, M. (2017). Interpretable predictions of tree-based ensembles via actionable feature tweaking. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 465–474).
132.
Traum, D., Rickel, J., Gratch, J., & Marsella, S. (2003). Negotiation over tasks in hybrid human–agent teams for simulation-based training. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 441–448). ACM.
133.
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1985). Empiricism in the philosophy of science. In P. M. Churchland & C. A. Hooker (Eds.), Images of science: Essays on realism and empiricism (pp. 245–308). University of Chicago Press.
134.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
135.
Vellido, A., Romero, E., Julià-Sapé, M., Majós, C., Moreno-Torres, À., Pujol, J., et al. (2012). Robust discrimination of glioblastomas from metastatic brain tumors on the basis of single-voxel 1H MRS. NMR in Biomedicine, 25(6), 819–828.
136.
Vellido, A., Martín-Guerrero, J. D., & Lisboa, P. J. G. (2012). Making machine learning models interpretable. In ESANN (Vol. 12, pp. 163–172).
137.
138.
Vlek, C. S., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., & Verheij, B. (2016). A method for explaining bayesian networks for legal evidence with scenarios. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 24(3), 285–324.
139.
Wang, T., Rudin, C., Doshi-Velez, F., Liu, Y., Klampfl, E., & MacNeille, P. (2017). A bayesian framework for learning rule sets for interpretable classification. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1), 2357–2393.MathSciNetMATH
140.
Whitmore, L. S., George, A., & Hudson, C. M. (2018) Explicating feature contribution using random forest proximity distances. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1807.​06572.
141.
Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2007). E-commerce product recommendation agents: Use, characteristics, and impact. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 137–209.
142.
Xu, K., Ba, J., Kiros, R., Cho, K., Courville, A., Salakhudinov, R., Zemel, R., & Bengio, Y. (2015). Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 2048–2057).
143.
Yanco, H. A., & Drury, J. (2004). Classifying human–robot interaction: An updated taxonomy. In IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (Vol. 3, pp. 2841–2846). IEEE.
144.
Yetim, F. (2008). A framework for organizing justifications for strategic use in adaptive interaction contexts. In ECIS (pp. 815–825).
145.
Yosinski, J., Clune, J., Nguyen, A., Fuchs, T., & Lipson, H. (2015). Understanding neural networks through deep visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1506.​06579.
146.
Zhang, Q., & Zhu, S.-C. (2018). Visual interpretability for deep learning: A survey. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 19(1), 27–39.
147.
Zhang, Y., Wallace, B. (2015). A sensitivity analysis of (and practitioners’ guide to) convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1510.​03820.
148.
Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Lapedriza, A., Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2016). Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 2921–2929).
149.
150.
Zhou, Z.-H., Jiang, Y., & Chen, S.-F. (2003). Extracting symbolic rules from trained neural network ensembles. Ai Communications, 16(1), 3–15.MATH
Metadaten
Titel
Explainability in human–agent systems
verfasst von
Avi Rosenfeld
Ariella Richardson
Publikationsdatum
13.05.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1387-2532
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7454
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-019-09408-y