A Falsificationist Account of Artificial Neural Networks

Machine learning operates at the intersection of statistics and computer science. This raises the question as to its underlying methodology. While much emphasis has been put on the close link between the process of learning from data and induction, the falsificationist component of machine learning has received minor attention. In this paper, we argue that the idea of falsification is central to the methodology of machine learning. It is commonly thought that machine learning algorithms infer general prediction rules from past observations. This is akin to a statistical procedure by which estimates are obtained from a sample of data. But machine learning algorithms can also be described as choosing one prediction rule from an entire class of functions. In particular, the algorithm that determines the weights of an artificial neural network operates by empirical risk minimization and rejects prediction rules that lack empirical adequacy. It also exhibits a behavior of implicit regularization that pushes hypothesis choice toward simpler prediction rules. We argue that taking both aspects together gives rise to a falsificationist account of artificial neural networks.

Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts

Existing and planned legislation stipulates various obligations to provide information about machine learning algorithms and their functioning, often interpreted as obligations to "explain". Many researchers suggest using post-hoc explanation algorithms for this purpose. In this paper, we combine legal, philosophical and technical arguments to show that post-hoc explanation algorithms are unsuitable to achieve the law's objectives. Indeed, most situations where explanations are requested are adversarial, meaning that the explanation provider and receiver have opposing interests and incentives, so that the provider might manipulate the explanation for her own ends. We show that this fundamental conflict cannot be resolved because of the high degree of ambiguity of post-hoc explanations in realistic application scenarios. As a consequence, post-hoc explanation algorithms are unsuitable to achieve the transparency objectives inherent to the legal norms. Instead, there is a need to more explicitly discuss the objectives underlying "explainability" obligations as these can often be better achieved through other mechanisms. There is an urgent need for a more open and honest discussion regarding the potential and limitations of post-hoc explanations in adversarial contexts, in particular in light of the current negotiations about the European Union's draft Artificial Intelligence Act.