MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806372986 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11353

Building More Explainable Artificial Intelligence With Argumentation

2018· article· en· W2806372986 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsArgumentation theoryArtificial intelligenceBlack boxComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Data scienceManagement scienceEpistemologyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, much of machine learning is opaque, just like a "black box." However, in order for humans to understand, trust and effectively manage the emerging AI systems, an AI needs to be able to explain its decisions and conclusions. In this paper, I propose an argumentation-based approach to explainable AI, which has the potential to generate more comprehensive explanations than existing approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it