This paper tackles post-hoc interpretability for audio processing networks. Our goal is to interpret decisions of a trained network in terms of high-level audio objects that are also listenable for the end-user. To this end, we propose a novel interpreter design that incorporates non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). In particular, a regularized interpreter module is trained to take hidden layer representations of the targeted network as input and produce time activations of pre-learnt NMF components as intermediate outputs. Our methodology allows us to generate intuitive audio-based interpretations that explicitly enhance parts of the input signal most relevant for a network's decision. We demonstrate our method's applicability on popular benchmarks, including a real-world multi-label classification task.

This paper tackles post-hoc interpretability for audio processing networks. Our goal is to interpret decisions of a trained network in terms of high-level audio objects that are also listenable for the end-user. To this end, we propose a novel interpreter design that incorporates non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). In particular, a regularized interpreter module is trained to take hidden layer representations of the targeted network as input and produce time activations of pre-learnt NMF components as intermediate outputs. Our methodology allows us to generate intuitive audio-based interpretations that explicitly enhance parts of the input signal most relevant for a network's decision.

Neural networks for NLP are becoming increasingly complex and widespread, and there is a growing concern if these models are responsible to use. Explaining models helps to address the safety and ethical concerns and is essential for accountability. Interpretability serves to provide these explanations in terms that are understandable to humans. Additionally, post-hoc methods provide explanations after a model is learned and are generally model-agnostic. This survey provides a categorization of how recent post-hoc interpretability methods communicate explanations to humans, it discusses each method in-depth, and how they are validated, as the latter is often a common concern.

In this paper I argue that the search for explainable models and interpretable decisions in AI must be reformulated in terms of the broader project of offering a pragmatic and naturalistic account of understanding in AI. Intuitively, the purpose of providing an explanation of a model or a decision is to make it understandable to its stakeholders. But without a previous grasp of what it means to say that an agent understands a model or a decision, the explanatory strategies will lack a well-defined goal. Aside from providing a clearer objective for XAI, focusing on understanding also allows us to relax the factivity condition on explanation, which is impossible to fulfill in many machine learning models, and to focus instead on the pragmatic conditions that determine the best fit between a model and the methods and devices deployed to understand it. After an examination of the different types of understanding discussed in the philosophical and psychological literature, I conclude that interpretative or approximation models not only provide the best way to achieve the objectual understanding of a machine learning model, but are also a necessary condition to achieve post-hoc interpretability. This conclusion is partly based on the shortcomings of the purely functionalist approach to post-hoc interpretability that seems to be predominant in most recent literature.

Post-hoc interpretability approaches have been proven to be powerful tools to generate explanations for the predictions made by a trained black-box model. However, they create the risk of having explanations that are a result of some artifacts learned by the model instead of actual knowledge from the data. This paper focuses on the case of counterfactual explanations and asks whether the generated instances can be justified, i.e. continuously connected to some ground-truth data. We evaluate the risk of generating unjustified counterfactual examples by investigating the local neighborhoods of instances whose predictions are to be explained and show that this risk is quite high for several datasets. Furthermore, we show that most state of the art approaches do not differentiate justified from unjustified counterfactual examples, leading to less useful explanations.