ACM Queue

Knowledge Base Construction in the Machine-learning Era

Three critical design points: Joint-learning, weak supervision, and new representations

This installment of Research for Practice features a curated selection from Alex Ratner and Chris Ré, who provide an overview of recent developments in Knowledge Base Construction (KBC). While knowledge bases have a long history dating to the expert systems of the 1970s, recent advances in machine learning have led to a knowledge base renaissance, with knowledge bases now powering major product functionality including Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri, and Wolfram Alpha. Ratner and Ré's selections highlight key considerations in the modern KBC process, from interfaces that extract knowledge from domain experts to algorithms and representations that transfer knowledge across tasks.

Knowledge Base Construction in the Machine-learning Era - ACM Queue This installment of Research for Practice features a curated selection from Alex Ratner and Chris Ré, who provide an overview of recent developments in Knowledge Base Construction (KBC). While knowledge bases have a long history dating to the expert systems of the 1970s, recent advances in machine ...

The Mythos of Model Interpretability

In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.

- Zachary C. Lipton

Supervised machine-learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? Models should be not only good, but also interpretable, yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. The academic literature has provided diverse and sometimes non-overlapping motivations for interpretability and has offered myriad techniques for rendering interpretable models. Despite this ambiguity, many authors proclaim their models to be interpretable axiomatically, absent further argument. Problematically, it is not clear what common properties unite these techniques.

This article seeks to refine the discourse on interpretability. First it examines the objectives of previous papers addressing interpretability, finding them to be diverse and occasionally discordant. Then, it explores model properties and techniques thought to confer interpretability, identifying transparency to humans and post hoc explanations as competing concepts. Throughout, the feasibility and desirability of different notions of interpretability are discussed. The article questions the oft-made assertions that linear models are interpretable and that deep neural networks are not.

The Mythos of Model Interpretability - ACM Queue Supervised machine-learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? Models should be not only good, but also interpretable, yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. The academi...