Abstract:In recent years, the question of the reliability of Machine Learning (ML) methods has acquired significant importance, and the analysis of the associated uncertainties has motivated a growing amount of research. However, most of these studies have applied standard error analysis to ML models, and in particular Deep Neural Network (DNN) models, which represent a rather significant departure from standard scientific modelling. It is therefore necessary to integrate the standard error analysis with a deeper epistemological analysis of the possible differences between DNN models and standard scientific modelling and the possible implications of these differences in the assessment of reliability. This article offers several contributions. First, it emphasises the ubiquitous role of model assumptions (both in ML and traditional Science) against the illusion of theory-free science. Secondly, model assumptions are analysed from the point of view of their (epistemic) complexity, which is shown to be language-independent. It is argued that the high epistemic complexity of DNN models hinders the estimate of their reliability and also their prospect of long-term progress. Some potential ways forward are suggested. Thirdly, this article identifies the close relation between a model's epistemic complexity and its interpretability, as introduced in the context of responsible AI. This clarifies in which sense, and to what extent, the lack of understanding of a model (black-box problem) impacts its interpretability in a way that is independent of individual skills. It also clarifies how interpretability is a precondition for assessing the reliability of any model, which cannot be based on statistical analysis alone. This article focuses on the comparison between traditional scientific models and DNN models. But, Random Forest and Logistic Regression models are also briefly considered.

Evaluating Deep Taylor Decomposition for Reliability Assessment in the Wild

A Survey of the Interpretability Aspect of Deep Learning Models

"All that Glitters": Approaches to Evaluations with Unreliable Model and Human Annotations

Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations

Stakeholder-centric explanations for black-box decisions: an XAI process model and its application to automotive goodwill assessments

Exploring the Robustness of Model-Graded Evaluations and Automated Interpretability

Mechanistic interpretability of large language models with applications to the financial services industry

Explaining the Unexplained: Revealing Hidden Correlations for Better Interpretability

Beyond Turing Test: Can GPT-4 Sway Experts' Decisions?

Topological Interpretability for Deep-Learning

DeforestVis: Behavior Analysis of Machine Learning Models with Surrogate Decision Stumps

Decompose and Leverage Preferences from Expert Models for Improving Trustworthiness of MLLMs

Do Explanations Reflect Decisions? A Machine-centric Strategy to Quantify the Performance of Explainability Algorithms

Reliability and Interpretability in Science and Deep Learning

Leveraging Community and Author Context to Explain the Performance and Bias of Text-Based Deception Detection Models

A Machine Learning Framework Towards Transparency in Experts' Decision Quality

Measuring Latent Trust Patterns in Large Language Models in the Context of Human-AI Teaming

Improving Decision Analytics with Deep Learning: The Case of Financial Disclosures

Multi-resolution Interpretation and Diagnostics Tool for Natural Language Classifiers

Rethinking End-to-End Evaluation of Decomposable Tasks: A Case Study on Spoken Language Understanding