Cited by 515Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanations

Open access
Ross, Andrew Slavin, Hughes, Michael C., Doshi-Velez, Finale·2017·Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Expressive classifiers such as neural networks are among the most accurate supervised learning methods in use today, but their opaque decision boundaries make them difficult to trust in critical applications. We propose a method to explain the predictions of any differentiable model via the gradient of the class label with respect to the input (which provides a normal to the decision boundary). Not only is this approach orders of magnitude faster at identifying input dimensions of high sensitivity than sample-based perturbation methods (e.g. LIME), but it also lends itself to efficiently discovering multiple qualitatively different decision boundaries as well as decision boundaries that are consistent with expert annotation. On multiple datasets, we show our approach generalizes much better when test conditions differ from those in training.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24963/ijcai.2017/371

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some papers already optimize for interpretability by using a regularization term or objective function during training of the predictive model or by relating rewards to explainability and presentation quality in reinforcement learning.

    “Some papers already optimize for interpretability by using a regularization term or objective function during training of the predictive model (e.g., [33,137,191,211,244,276,277,289]) or by relating rewards to explainability and presentation quality in reinforcement learning (e.g., [268]).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. David Baehrens, Timon Schroeter, Stefan Harmeling, Motoaki Kawanabe, Katja Hansen, and Klaus-Robert Müller. How to explain individual classification decisions. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(Jun):1803-1831, 2010.
  2. Fong and Vedaldi, 2017] Ruth Fong and Andrea Vedaldi. Inter- pretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03296, 2017. · arXiv
  3. Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Ra- tionalizing neural predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04155, 2016. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ross, A. S., Hughes, M. C., & Doshi-Velez, F.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Harvard University
Venue
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2017-08
Pages
2662-2670
OpenAlex
W2595017202
Cited by
515
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
18.21
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF-16-1-0561)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-17, FA9550-, FA9550-17-1, -16-1-)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
explainable AI, gradient-based explanation, decision boundaries, neural network interpretability, perturbation method, lime

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review