William Vorhies discusses a new technical paper on Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations:

What the model actually used for classification were these: ‘posting’, ‘host’, ‘NNTP’, ‘EDU’, ‘have’, ‘there’.  These are meaningless artifacts that appear in both the training and test sets and have nothing to do with the topic except that, for example, the word “posting” (part of the email header) appears in 21.6% of the examples in the training set but only two times in the class “Christianity.”

Is this model going to generalize?  Absolutely not.

An Example from Image Processing

In this example using Google’s Inception NN on arbitrary images the objective was to correctly classify “tree frogs”.  The classifier was correct in about 54% of cases but also interpreted the image as a pool table (7%) and a balloon (5%).

Looks like an interesting paper.  Click through for a link to the paper.

Related Posts

Sentiment Analysis with Python

Bruno Stecanella shows us how to use MonkeyLearn to perform sentiment analysis in Python: Sentiment analysis is a set of Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that takes a text (in more academic circles, a document) written in natural language and extracts the opinions present in the text. In a more practical sense, our objective here is to take a text […]

Read More

Scalable Anomaly Detection with Kafka and Cassandra

Paul Brebner wraps up a series on anomaly detection at scale: The complete machine for the biggest result (48 Cassandra nodes) has 574 cores in total.  This is a lot of cores! Managing the provisioning and monitoring of this sized system by hand would be an enormous effort. With the combination of the Instaclustr managed […]

Read More


September 2016
« Aug Oct »