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

Mark T. Keane

Mark T. Keane appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learningphysics.soc-phSocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
5topics
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)

preprint2021arXiv

Predicting Illness for a Sustainable Dairy Agriculture: Predicting and Explaining the Onset of Mastitis in Dairy Cows

Mastitis is a billion dollar health problem for the modern dairy industry, with implications for antibiotic resistance. The use of AI techniques to identify the early onset of this disease, thus has significant implications for the sustainability of this agricultural sector. Current approaches to treating mastitis involve antibiotics and this practice is coming under ever increasing scrutiny. Using machine learning models to identify cows at risk of developing mastitis and applying targeted treatment regimes to only those animals promotes a more sustainable approach. Incorrect predictions from such models, however, can lead to monetary losses, unnecessary use of antibiotics, and even the premature death of animals, so it is important to generate compelling explanations for predictions to build trust with users and to better support their decision making. In this paper we demonstrate a system developed to predict mastitis infections in cows and provide explanations of these predictions using counterfactuals. We demonstrate the system and describe the engagement with farmers undertaken to build it.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Good Counterfactuals and Where to Find Them: A Case-Based Technique for Generating Counterfactuals for Explainable AI (XAI)

Recently, a groundswell of research has identified the use of counterfactual explanations as a potentially significant solution to the Explainable AI (XAI) problem. It is argued that (a) technically, these counterfactual cases can be generated by permuting problem-features until a class change is found, (b) psychologically, they are much more causally informative than factual explanations, (c) legally, they are GDPR-compliant. However, there are issues around the finding of good counterfactuals using current techniques (e.g. sparsity and plausibility). We show that many commonly-used datasets appear to have few good counterfactuals for explanation purposes. So, we propose a new case based approach for generating counterfactuals using novel ideas about the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of a case-base. The new technique reuses patterns of good counterfactuals, present in a case-base, to generate analogous counterfactuals that can explain new problems and their solutions. Several experiments show how this technique can improve the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of case-bases that were previously found wanting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Generating Plausible Counterfactual and Semi-Factual Explanations for Deep Learning

There is a growing concern that the recent progress made in AI, especially regarding the predictive competence of deep learning models, will be undermined by a failure to properly explain their operation and outputs. In response to this disquiet counterfactual explanations have become massively popular in eXplainable AI (XAI) due to their proposed computational psychological, and legal benefits. In contrast however, semifactuals, which are a similar way humans commonly explain their reasoning, have surprisingly received no attention. Most counterfactual methods address tabular rather than image data, partly due to the nondiscrete nature of the latter making good counterfactuals difficult to define. Additionally generating plausible looking explanations which lie on the data manifold is another issue which hampers progress. This paper advances a novel method for generating plausible counterfactuals (and semifactuals) for black box CNN classifiers doing computer vision. The present method, called PlausIble Exceptionality-based Contrastive Explanations (PIECE), modifies all exceptional features in a test image to be normal from the perspective of the counterfactual class (hence concretely defining a counterfactual). Two controlled experiments compare this method to others in the literature, showing that PIECE not only generates the most plausible counterfactuals on several measures, but also the best semifactuals.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Play MNIST For Me! User Studies on the Effects of Post-Hoc, Example-Based Explanations & Error Rates on Debugging a Deep Learning, Black-Box Classifier

This paper reports two experiments (N=349) on the impact of post hoc explanations by example and error rates on peoples perceptions of a black box classifier. Both experiments show that when people are given case based explanations, from an implemented ANN CBR twin system, they perceive miss classifications to be more correct. They also show that as error rates increase above 4%, people trust the classifier less and view it as being less correct, less reasonable and less trustworthy. The implications of these results for XAI are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Cognitive residues of similarity

What are the cognitive after-effects of making a similarity judgement? What, cognitively, is left behind and what effect might these residues have on subsequent processing? In this paper, we probe for such after-effects using a visual search task, performed after a task in which pictures of real-world objects were compared. So, target objects were first presented in a comparison task (e.g., rate the similarity of this object to another) thus, presumably, modifying some of their features before asking people to visually search for the same object in complex scenes (with distractors and camouflaged backgrounds). As visual search is known to be influenced by the features of target objects, then any after-effects of the comparison task should be revealed in subsequent visual searches. Results showed that when people previously rated an object as being high on a scale (e.g., colour similarity or general similarity) then visual search is inhibited (slower RTs and more saccades in eye-tracking) relative to an object being rated as low in the same scale. There was also some evidence that different comparison tasks (e.g., compare on colour or compare on general similarity) have differential effects on visual search.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Innovation networks

This paper advances a framework for modeling the component interactions between cognitive and social aspects of scientific creativity and technological innovation. Specifically, it aims to characterize Innovation Networks; those networks that involve the interplay of people, ideas and organizations to create new, technologically feasible, commercially-realizable products, processes and organizational structures. The tri-partite framework captures networks of ideas (Concept Level), people (Individual Level) and social structures (Social-Organizational Level) and the interactions between these levels. At the concept level, new ideas are the nodes that are created and linked, kept open for further investigation or closed if solved by actors at the individual or organizational levels. At the individual level, the nodes are actors linked by shared worldviews (based on shared professional, educational, experiential backgrounds) who are the builders of the concept level. At the social-organizational level, the nodes are organizations linked by common efforts on a given project (e.g., a company-university collaboration) that by virtue of their intellectual property or rules of governance constrain the actions of individuals (at the Individual Level) or ideas (at the Concept Level). After describing this framework and its implications we paint a number of scenarios to flesh out how it can be applied.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Surprise: Youve got some explaining to do

Why are some events more surprising than others? We propose that events that are more difficult to explain are those that are more surprising. The two experiments reported here test the impact of different event outcomes (Outcome-Type) and task demands (Task) on ratings of surprise for simple story scenarios. For the Outcome-Type variable, participants saw outcomes that were either known or less-known surprising outcomes for each scenario. For the Task variable, participants either answered comprehension questions or provided an explanation of the outcome. Outcome-Type reliably affected surprise judgments; known outcomes were rated as less surprising than less-known outcomes. Task also reliably affected surprise judgments; when people provided an explanation it lowered surprise judgments relative to simply answering comprehension questions. Both experiments thus provide evidence on this less-explored explanation aspect of surprise, specifically showing that ease of explanation is a key factor in determining the level of surprise experienced.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access