通过集成规则提升神经网络解释的覆盖范围,精度损失极小。
Ensembles-based Feature Guided Analysis
- 将多个特征引导分析规则集成,按策略合并以扩大适用场景。
- 在MNIST和LSC数据集上,训练与测试召回率分别提升28.51%~33.15%。
- 适合需要高覆盖率解释的模型可解释性研究者使用。
当前深度神经网络应用亟需解释其行为的方法。现有方法如特征引导分析(FGA)能提取出内部行为规则,例如基于神经元激活提供解释,虽具有较高精度,但召回率有限。为此,本文提出基于集成的特征引导分析(EFGA),将FGA提取的规则进行集成,通过不同聚合准则整合规则以提升适用范围。尽管该方案可扩展,用户可自定义聚合准则,本文仍考虑了三种准则。在MNIST与LSC两个基准数据集上评估不同准则对EFGA效果的影响,发现各准则在精度与召回间呈现不同权衡。进一步对比EFGA与FGA,选取一个平衡精度与召回的准则,结果表明:在训练召回上,EFGA相较FGA提升28.51%(MNIST)与33.15%(LSC),测试召回提升25.76%(MNIST)与30.81%(LSC),而测试精度仅轻微下降0.89%(MNIST)与0.69%(LSC)。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Recent Deep Neural Networks (DNN) applications ask for techniques that can explain their behavior. Existing solutions, such as Feature Guided Analysis (FGA), extract rules on their internal behaviors, e.g., by providing explanations related to neurons activation. Results from the literature show that these rules have considerable precision (i.e., they correctly predict certain classes of features), but the recall (i.e., the number of situations these rule apply) is more limited. To mitigate this problem, this paper presents Ensembles-based Feature Guided Analysis (EFGA). EFGA combines rules extracted by FGA into ensembles. Ensembles aggregate different rules to increase their applicability depending on an aggregation criterion, a policy that dictates how to combine rules into ensembles. Although our solution is extensible, and different aggregation criteria can be developed by users, in this work, we considered three different aggregation criteria. We evaluated how the choice of the criterion influences the effectiveness of EFGA on two benchmarks (i.e., the MNIST and LSC datasets), and found that different aggregation criteria offer alternative trade-offs between precision and recall. We then compare EFGA with FGA. For this experiment, we selected an aggregation criterion that provides a reasonable trade-off between precision and recall. Our results show that EFGA has higher train recall (+28.51% on MNIST, +33.15% on LSC), and test recall (+25.76% on MNIST, +30.81% on LSC) than FGA, with a negligible reduction on the test precision (-0.89% on MNIST, -0.69% on LSC).
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。