PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Information based explanation methods for deep learning agents -- with applications on large open-source chess models

Patrik Hammersborg, Inga Strumke

interpretability & vizExplainable AIsaliency mapsconcept detectionlarge chess modelsneural networks
9.70100
Fused
band ≈ ±13 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
5.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)
12.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.36)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Select information based explanation methods applied to an open-source replacement of AlphaZero, in addition to the presentation of a novel method for creating saliency maps with strong guarantees wrt. information flow.

Abstract

With large chess-playing neural network models like AlphaZero contesting the state of the art within the world of computerised chess, two challenges present themselves: The question of how to explain the domain knowledge internalised by such models, and the problem that such models are not made openly available. This work presents the re-implementation of the concept detection methodology applied to AlphaZero in McGrath et al. (2022), by using large, open-source chess models with comparable performance. We obtain results similar to those achieved on AlphaZero, while relying solely on open-source resources. We also present a novel explainable AI (XAI) method, which is guaranteed to highlight exhaustively and exclusively the information used by the explained model. This method generates visual explanations tailored to domains characterised by discrete input spaces, as is the case for chess. Our presented method has the desirable property of controlling the information flow between any input vector and the given model, which in turn provides strict guarantees regarding what information is used by the trained model during inference. We demonstrate the viability of our method by applying it to standard 8x8 chess, using large open-source chess models.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 42 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 38% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 42)