Abstract:This paper discusses the limitations of machine learning (ML), particularly deep artificial neural networks (ANNs), which are effective at approximating complex functions but often lack transparency and explanatory power. It highlights the `problem of induction' : the philosophical issue that past observations may not necessarily predict future events, a challenge that ML models face when encountering new, unseen data. The paper argues for the importance of not just making predictions but also providing good explanations, a feature that current models often fail to deliver. It suggests that for AI to progress, we must seek models that offer insights and explanations, not just predictions.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper discusses the limitations of machine learning, especially deep artificial neural networks, in terms of transparency and interpretability. It points out that although these models excel in complex function approximation, they often fail to provide sufficient explanations, which is a key problem in the development of artificial intelligence. The paper emphasizes that it is not just about making predictions, but also about providing good explanations, which current models often fail to achieve. The author believes that relying solely on machine induction to build AI models may not be sufficient to address the fundamental problem, as induction itself has philosophical "induction problems," whereby past experiences cannot guarantee future predictions. The paper introduces the "induction problem," which stems from David Hume's philosophical viewpoint, questioning the rationality of inferring from observed to unobserved data. In machine learning, this means that models trained based on historical data may not generalize well to unknown data. Despite research in the field of "interpretable AI" attempting to uncover the generalization principles of models, the induction problem and the lack of good explanations still persist. The author argues that scientific models should possess explanatory power, being able to predict and understand phenomena rather than just making predictions. The paper cites Karl Popper's scientific method, emphasizing the importance of the falsifiability and explanatory power of theories. The author believes that while current models are capable of generalizing within the distribution, the best explanatory models can extrapolate beyond the distribution, something that induction methods like deep learning cannot achieve. Finally, the paper points out that although predictive capabilities are strong and useful, relying solely on predictions is not enough to provide in-depth understanding. In order to make real progress, we need to look for models that can provide insights and explanations, rather than solely relying on improving predictive performance.

Inductive Models for Artificial Intelligence Systems are Insufficient without Good Explanations

Explaining Explanations in AI

"Why did you do that?": Explaining black box models with Inductive Synthesis

Machine Explanations and Human Understanding

Helpful, Misleading or Confusing: How Humans Perceive Fundamental Building Blocks of Artificial Intelligence Explanations

Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning

Inductive reasoning in minds and machines.

The future of human-centric eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is not post-hoc explanations

A Model for Intelligible Interaction Between Agents That Predict and Explain

Explainability of Artificial Intelligence Models: Technical Foundations and Legal Principles

Harnessing Explanations to Bridge AI and Humans

Explaining Any ML Model? -- On Goals and Capabilities of XAI

Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement

Explaining Explaining

Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations

Explaining Decisions in ML Models: a Parameterized Complexity Analysis

Should Machine Learning Models Report to Us When They Are Clueless?

Critical Empirical Study on Black-box Explanations in AI

Large Language Models Cannot Explain Themselves

Thermodynamics-inspired explanations of artificial intelligence

Evaluating The Explainability of State-of-the-Art Machine Learning-based Online Network Intrusion Detection Systems