BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Marco Tulio Ribeiro

Marco Tulio Ribeiro appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Machine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageHuman-Computer Interaction

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Finding and Fixing Spurious Patterns with Explanations

Image classifiers often use spurious patterns, such as "relying on the presence of a person to detect a tennis racket, which do not generalize. In this work, we present an end-to-end pipeline for identifying and mitigating spurious patterns for such models, under the assumption that we have access to pixel-wise object-annotations. We start by identifying patterns such as "the model's prediction for tennis racket changes 63% of the time if we hide the people." Then, if a pattern is spurious, we mitigate it via a novel form of data augmentation. We demonstrate that our method identifies a diverse set of spurious patterns and that it mitigates them by producing a model that is both more accurate on a distribution where the spurious pattern is not helpful and more robust to distribution shift.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance

Many researchers motivate explainable AI with studies showing that human-AI team performance on decision-making tasks improves when the AI explains its recommendations. However, prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. Can explanations help lead to complementary performance, where team accuracy is higher than either the human or the AI working solo? We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task (explaining itself in some conditions). While we observed complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by explanations. Rather, explanations increased the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness. Our result poses new challenges for human-centered AI: Can we develop explanatory approaches that encourage appropriate trust in AI, and therefore help generate (or improve) complementary performance?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList

Although measuring held-out accuracy has been the primary approach to evaluate generalization, it often overestimates the performance of NLP models, while alternative approaches for evaluating models either focus on individual tasks or on specific behaviors. Inspired by principles of behavioral testing in software engineering, we introduce CheckList, a task-agnostic methodology for testing NLP models. CheckList includes a matrix of general linguistic capabilities and test types that facilitate comprehensive test ideation, as well as a software tool to generate a large and diverse number of test cases quickly. We illustrate the utility of CheckList with tests for three tasks, identifying critical failures in both commercial and state-of-art models. In a user study, a team responsible for a commercial sentiment analysis model found new and actionable bugs in an extensively tested model. In another user study, NLP practitioners with CheckList created twice as many tests, and found almost three times as many bugs as users without it.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier

Despite widespread adoption, machine learning models remain mostly black boxes. Understanding the reasons behind predictions is, however, quite important in assessing trust, which is fundamental if one plans to take action based on a prediction, or when choosing whether to deploy a new model. Such understanding also provides insights into the model, which can be used to transform an untrustworthy model or prediction into a trustworthy one. In this work, we propose LIME, a novel explanation technique that explains the predictions of any classifier in an interpretable and faithful manner, by learning an interpretable model locally around the prediction. We also propose a method to explain models by presenting representative individual predictions and their explanations in a non-redundant way, framing the task as a submodular optimization problem. We demonstrate the flexibility of these methods by explaining different models for text (e.g. random forests) and image classification (e.g. neural networks). We show the utility of explanations via novel experiments, both simulated and with human subjects, on various scenarios that require trust: deciding if one should trust a prediction, choosing between models, improving an untrustworthy classifier, and identifying why a classifier should not be trusted.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learning

Understanding why machine learning models behave the way they do empowers both system designers and end-users in many ways: in model selection, feature engineering, in order to trust and act upon the predictions, and in more intuitive user interfaces. Thus, interpretability has become a vital concern in machine learning, and work in the area of interpretable models has found renewed interest. In some applications, such models are as accurate as non-interpretable ones, and thus are preferred for their transparency. Even when they are not accurate, they may still be preferred when interpretability is of paramount importance. However, restricting machine learning to interpretable models is often a severe limitation. In this paper we argue for explaining machine learning predictions using model-agnostic approaches. By treating the machine learning models as black-box functions, these approaches provide crucial flexibility in the choice of models, explanations, and representations, improving debugging, comparison, and interfaces for a variety of users and models. We also outline the main challenges for such methods, and review a recently-introduced model-agnostic explanation approach (LIME) that addresses these challenges.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Nothing Else Matters: Model-Agnostic Explanations By Identifying Prediction Invariance

At the core of interpretable machine learning is the question of whether humans are able to make accurate predictions about a model's behavior. Assumed in this question are three properties of the interpretable output: coverage, precision, and effort. Coverage refers to how often humans think they can predict the model's behavior, precision to how accurate humans are in those predictions, and effort is either the up-front effort required in interpreting the model, or the effort required to make predictions about a model's behavior. In this work, we propose anchor-LIME (aLIME), a model-agnostic technique that produces high-precision rule-based explanations for which the coverage boundaries are very clear. We compare aLIME to linear LIME with simulated experiments, and demonstrate the flexibility of aLIME with qualitative examples from a variety of domains and tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Programs as Black-Box Explanations

Recent work in model-agnostic explanations of black-box machine learning has demonstrated that interpretability of complex models does not have to come at the cost of accuracy or model flexibility. However, it is not clear what kind of explanations, such as linear models, decision trees, and rule lists, are the appropriate family to consider, and different tasks and models may benefit from different kinds of explanations. Instead of picking a single family of representations, in this work we propose to use "programs" as model-agnostic explanations. We show that small programs can be expressive yet intuitive as explanations, and generalize over a number of existing interpretable families. We propose a prototype program induction method based on simulated annealing that approximates the local behavior of black-box classifiers around a specific prediction using random perturbations. Finally, we present preliminary application on small datasets and show that the generated explanations are intuitive and accurate for a number of classifiers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access