Learning Credible Deep Neural Networks with Rationale Regularization

Authors: Mengnan Du, Ninghao Liu, Fan Yang, Xia Hu

ICDM 2019
AI-generated keywords: CREX Explainable AI Trustworthiness Deep Neural Networks Regularization

AI-generated Key Points

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • State-of-the-art deep neural networks (DNNs) often fail to consider the correct evidence when making decisions
  • This affects their ability to generalize and undermines their trustworthiness among end-users
  • CREX (Credible Deep Neural Networks with Rationale Regularization) is introduced as a method to address this issue and develop more credible DNNs
  • CREX encourages DNN models to focus on relevant evidence and avoid overfitting to data-dependent biases and artifacts
  • It achieves this by regularizing the training process of DNNs with rationales, which are a subset of features identified by domain experts as justifications for predictions
  • By enforcing DNNs to generate local explanations that align with expert rationales, CREX enhances the credibility of these models
  • Even in cases where rationales are not available, CREX remains useful by requiring the generated explanations to be sparse
  • Experimental results on two text classification datasets demonstrate that DNNs trained with CREX exhibit increased credibility
  • Comprehensive analysis reveals that while CREX does not always improve prediction accuracy on held-out test sets, it significantly enhances DNN accuracy on new and previously unseen data beyond the test set
  • The authors propose an effective approach for developing more trustworthy DNN models through CREX which encourages them to prioritize relevant evidence and avoid overfitting
  • The experimental results support its effectiveness in enhancing model credibility and improving performance on unseen data
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Recent explainability related studies have shown that state-of-the-art DNNs do not always adopt correct evidences to make decisions. It not only hampers their generalization but also makes them less likely to be trusted by end-users. In pursuit of developing more credible DNNs, in this paper we propose CREX, which encourages DNN models to focus more on evidences that actually matter for the task at hand, and to avoid overfitting to data-dependent bias and artifacts. Specifically, CREX regularizes the training process of DNNs with rationales, i.e., a subset of features highlighted by domain experts as justifications for predictions, to enforce DNNs to generate local explanations that conform with expert rationales. Even when rationales are not available, CREX still could be useful by requiring the generated explanations to be sparse. Experimental results on two text classification datasets demonstrate the increased credibility of DNNs trained with CREX. Comprehensive analysis further shows that while CREX does not always improve prediction accuracy on the held-out test set, it significantly increases DNN accuracy on new and previously unseen data beyond test set, highlighting the advantage of the increased credibility.

Submitted to arXiv on 13 Aug. 2019

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1908.05601v1

⚠This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
In recent studies on explainability, it has been observed that state-of-the-art deep neural networks (DNNs) often fail to consider the correct evidence when making decisions. This not only affects their ability to generalize but also undermines their trustworthiness among end-users. To address this issue and develop more credible DNNs, this paper introduces a method called CREX (Credible Deep Neural Networks with Rationale Regularization). CREX aims to encourage DNN models to focus on the relevant evidence for a given task and avoid overfitting to data-dependent biases and artifacts. It achieves this by regularizing the training process of DNNs with rationales, which are a subset of features identified by domain experts as justifications for predictions. By enforcing DNNs to generate local explanations that align with expert rationales, CREX enhances the credibility of these models. Even in cases where rationales are not available, CREX remains useful by requiring the generated explanations to be sparse. Experimental results on two text classification datasets demonstrate that DNNs trained with CREX exhibit increased credibility. Furthermore, comprehensive analysis reveals that while CREX does not always improve prediction accuracy on held-out test sets, it significantly enhances DNN accuracy on new and previously unseen data beyond the test set. This highlights the advantage of increased credibility in real-world scenarios. The authors of this paper propose an effective approach for developing more trustworthy DNN models through CREX which encourages them to prioritize relevant evidence and avoid overfitting. The experimental results support its effectiveness in enhancing model credibility and improving performance on unseen data. Overall, this research contributes significantly to advancing the field of explainable AI and addressing important concerns regarding trustworthiness in deep learning systems.

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.