Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| courses:xai:p1_2025 [2025/11/20 10:09] – [Eyetracking for analysis of XAI and human behaviour in anomaly-deteciton tasks] admin | courses:xai:p1_2025 [2025/12/01 09:24] (current) – [Programming Assignment I] admin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| Assignments marked with {{: | Assignments marked with {{: | ||
| Projects marked with {{: | Projects marked with {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Select your project: | ||
| + | * [Monday group]: [[https:// | ||
| Line 21: | Line 24: | ||
| - Use more models than just patchore and XAI methods like SHAP which are model-agnostic | - Use more models than just patchore and XAI methods like SHAP which are model-agnostic | ||
| - Implement customModel for tobii-pytracker, | - Implement customModel for tobii-pytracker, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Test and report bugs/issues for ACFX counterfactual explainer===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | The goal is to take the [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | Any issue, bug or inconsistency with documentaiton should be reported to the issue tracker. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Possible extensions to a paper/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== WinClip for explainable anomaly detection===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Testing WinCLIP model for explainable anomaly detection. See if the model can be used to obtain textual explanations of a detrected anomalies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Predictive multiplicity estimation===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Find ready to use frameworks that allwos to measure [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | You may start by lookint this paper and its references: [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Logical neural networks ===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | How to use [[https:// | ||
| + | For instance how to extract the activated predicates to outrput the rule that resulted in final decission? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== ProtoTS Net ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | Inspect its variant which goal is to guide training procedure with manually created prortypes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What could be done to improve its predictive power? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== TSProto for images===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | Try to implement TSProto variant that will work for images too (use segmentation to detect segments), cluster segments to detect prototypes, build a decision tree that explains a decision using this visual prototypes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Counterfactual Analysis ===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Benchmark 3 models on 3 datasets (e.g., Breast Cancer, Adult, Heart Disease), explain the best model using (SHAP, Lime, and feature importance), | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Extra**: Evaluate the counterfactual explanations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Human-Constrained Counterfactuals ===== | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Train a classifier on a tabular dataset (e.g., Breast Cancer, Adult, Heart Disease), generate counterfactual explanations for selected instances without any constraints using (ACFX, DICE, CLUE, CFNOW) , then regenerate counterfactuals while forbidding changes to sensitive or immutable features (e.g., age, gender, race, marital status, education). Compare both sets of explanations in a before/ | ||
| + | Example: “A bank cannot change a customer’s age or marital status, but can suggest financial improvements.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Extra**: Quantify how many counterfactuals become invalid or infeasible when constraints are applied. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Correlation Problems in XAI ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Train a model on a dataset with correlated features (e.g., Breast Cancer, Adult, Heart Disease). Visualize the correlation structure, then generate explanations using two XAI methods (e.g., SHAP and LIME). Identify at least one case where the model attributes importance to a feature that is likely acting as a proxy for another correlated variable. Show before/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Extra**: Propose and implement one strategy to reduce misleading explanations (e.g., feature grouping, PCA, domain-level feature merging…). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== TSProto for Colab ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Try to run tutorials of [[https:// | ||
| + | Once done, create a pull request to include the changes in the current implementation of TSProto | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||