An important part of law and regulation is demanding explanations for actual and potential failures. We ask questions like: What happened (or might happen) to cause this failure? And why did (or might) it happen? These are disguised normative questions - they really ask what ought to have happened, and how the humans involved ought to have behaved. To answer the normative questions, law and regulation seeks a narrative explanation, a story. At present, we seek these kinds of narrative explanation from AI technology, because as humans we seek to understand technology's working through constructing a story to explain it. Our cultural history makes this inevitable - authors like Asimov, writing narratives about future AI technologies like intelligent robots, have told us that they act in ways explainable by the narrative logic which we use to explain human actions and so they can also be explained to us in those terms. This is, at least currently, not true. This work argues that we can only solve this problem by working from both sides. Technologists will need to find ways to tell us stories which law and regulation can use. But law and regulation will also need to accept different kinds of narratives, which tell stories about fundamental legal and regulatory concepts like fairness and reasonableness that are different from those we are used to.
相關內容
Automated hyperparameter optimization (HPO) can support practitioners to obtain peak performance in machine learning models. However, there is often a lack of valuable insights into the effects of different hyperparameters on the final model performance. This lack of explainability makes it difficult to trust and understand the automated HPO process and its results. We suggest using interpretable machine learning (IML) to gain insights from the experimental data obtained during HPO with Bayesian optimization (BO). BO tends to focus on promising regions with potential high-performance configurations and thus induces a sampling bias. Hence, many IML techniques, such as the partial dependence plot (PDP), carry the risk of generating biased interpretations. By leveraging the posterior uncertainty of the BO surrogate model, we introduce a variant of the PDP with estimated confidence bands. We propose to partition the hyperparameter space to obtain more confident and reliable PDPs in relevant sub-regions. In an experimental study, we provide quantitative evidence for the increased quality of the PDPs within sub-regions.
One of the most important ways to experience communication and interact with the systems is by handling the prediction of the most likely words to happen after typing letters or words. It is helpful for people with disabilities due to disabling people who could type or enter texts at a limited slow speed. Also, it is beneficial for people with dyslexia and those people who are not well with spells of words. Though, an input technology, for instance, the next word suggestion facilitates the typing process in smartphones as an example. This means that when a user types a word, then the system suggests the next words to be chosen in which the necessary word by the user. Besides, it can be used in entertainment as a gam, for example, to determine a target word and reach it or tackle it within 10 attempts of prediction. Generally, the systems depend on a text corpus, which was provided in the system to conduct the prediction. Writing every single word is time-consuming, therefore, it is vitally important to decrease time consumption by reducing efforts to input texts in the systems by offering most probable words for the user to select, this could be done via next word prediction systems. There are several techniques can be found in literature, which is utilized to conduct a variety of next word prediction systems by using different approaches. In this paper, a survey of miscellaneous techniques towards the next word prediction systems will be addressed. Besides, the evaluation of the prediction systems will be discussed. Then, a modal technique will be determined to be utilized for the next word prediction system from the perspective of easiness of implementation and obtaining a good result.
Algorithmic fairness has aroused considerable interests in data mining and machine learning communities recently. So far the existing research has been mostly focusing on the development of quantitative metrics to measure algorithm disparities across different protected groups, and approaches for adjusting the algorithm output to reduce such disparities. In this paper, we propose to study the problem of identification of the source of model disparities. Unlike existing interpretation methods which typically learn feature importance, we consider the causal relationships among feature variables and propose a novel framework to decompose the disparity into the sum of contributions from fairness-aware causal paths, which are paths linking the sensitive attribute and the final predictions, on the graph. We also consider the scenario when the directions on certain edges within those paths cannot be determined. Our framework is also model agnostic and applicable to a variety of quantitative disparity measures. Empirical evaluations on both synthetic and real-world data sets are provided to show that our method can provide precise and comprehensive explanations to the model disparities.
Understanding the inner workings of deep neural networks (DNNs) is essential to provide trustworthy artificial intelligence techniques for practical applications. Existing studies typically involve linking semantic concepts to units or layers of DNNs, but fail to explain the inference process. In this paper, we introduce neural architecture disentanglement (NAD) to fill the gap. Specifically, NAD learns to disentangle a pre-trained DNN into sub-architectures according to independent tasks, forming information flows that describe the inference processes. We investigate whether, where, and how the disentanglement occurs through experiments conducted with handcrafted and automatically-searched network architectures, on both object-based and scene-based datasets. Based on the experimental results, we present three new findings that provide fresh insights into the inner logic of DNNs. First, DNNs can be divided into sub-architectures for independent tasks. Second, deeper layers do not always correspond to higher semantics. Third, the connection type in a DNN affects how the information flows across layers, leading to different disentanglement behaviors. With NAD, we further explain why DNNs sometimes give wrong predictions. Experimental results show that misclassified images have a high probability of being assigned to task sub-architectures similar to the correct ones. Code will be available at: //github.com/hujiecpp/NAD.
As a field of AI, Machine Reasoning (MR) uses largely symbolic means to formalize and emulate abstract reasoning. Studies in early MR have notably started inquiries into Explainable AI (XAI) -- arguably one of the biggest concerns today for the AI community. Work on explainable MR as well as on MR approaches to explainability in other areas of AI has continued ever since. It is especially potent in modern MR branches, such as argumentation, constraint and logic programming, planning. We hereby aim to provide a selective overview of MR explainability techniques and studies in hopes that insights from this long track of research will complement well the current XAI landscape. This document reports our work in-progress on MR explainability.
Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims. A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process -- generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model.
To make deliberate progress towards more intelligent and more human-like artificial systems, we need to be following an appropriate feedback signal: we need to be able to define and evaluate intelligence in a way that enables comparisons between two systems, as well as comparisons with humans. Over the past hundred years, there has been an abundance of attempts to define and measure intelligence, across both the fields of psychology and AI. We summarize and critically assess these definitions and evaluation approaches, while making apparent the two historical conceptions of intelligence that have implicitly guided them. We note that in practice, the contemporary AI community still gravitates towards benchmarking intelligence by comparing the skill exhibited by AIs and humans at specific tasks such as board games and video games. We argue that solely measuring skill at any given task falls short of measuring intelligence, because skill is heavily modulated by prior knowledge and experience: unlimited priors or unlimited training data allow experimenters to "buy" arbitrary levels of skills for a system, in a way that masks the system's own generalization power. We then articulate a new formal definition of intelligence based on Algorithmic Information Theory, describing intelligence as skill-acquisition efficiency and highlighting the concepts of scope, generalization difficulty, priors, and experience. Using this definition, we propose a set of guidelines for what a general AI benchmark should look like. Finally, we present a benchmark closely following these guidelines, the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), built upon an explicit set of priors designed to be as close as possible to innate human priors. We argue that ARC can be used to measure a human-like form of general fluid intelligence and that it enables fair general intelligence comparisons between AI systems and humans.
While models for Visual Question Answering (VQA) have steadily improved over the years, interacting with one quickly reveals that these models lack consistency. For instance, if a model answers "red" to "What color is the balloon?", it might answer "no" if asked, "Is the balloon red?". These responses violate simple notions of entailment and raise questions about how effectively VQA models ground language. In this work, we introduce a dataset, ConVQA, and metrics that enable quantitative evaluation of consistency in VQA. For a given observable fact in an image (e.g. the balloon's color), we generate a set of logically consistent question-answer (QA) pairs (e.g. Is the balloon red?) and also collect a human-annotated set of common-sense based consistent QA pairs (e.g. Is the balloon the same color as tomato sauce?). Further, we propose a consistency-improving data augmentation module, a Consistency Teacher Module (CTM). CTM automatically generates entailed (or similar-intent) questions for a source QA pair and fine-tunes the VQA model if the VQA's answer to the entailed question is consistent with the source QA pair. We demonstrate that our CTM-based training improves the consistency of VQA models on the ConVQA datasets and is a strong baseline for further research.
Explainable recommendation attempts to develop models that generate not only high-quality recommendations but also intuitive explanations. The explanations may either be post-hoc or directly come from an explainable model (also called interpretable or transparent model in some context). Explainable recommendation tries to address the problem of why: by providing explanations to users or system designers, it helps humans to understand why certain items are recommended by the algorithm, where the human can either be users or system designers. Explainable recommendation helps to improve the transparency, persuasiveness, effectiveness, trustworthiness, and satisfaction of recommendation systems. In this survey, we review works on explainable recommendation in or before the year of 2019. We first highlight the position of explainable recommendation in recommender system research by categorizing recommendation problems into the 5W, i.e., what, when, who, where, and why. We then conduct a comprehensive survey of explainable recommendation on three perspectives: 1) We provide a chronological research timeline of explainable recommendation, including user study approaches in the early years and more recent model-based approaches. 2) We provide a two-dimensional taxonomy to classify existing explainable recommendation research: one dimension is the information source (or display style) of the explanations, and the other dimension is the algorithmic mechanism to generate explainable recommendations. 3) We summarize how explainable recommendation applies to different recommendation tasks, such as product recommendation, social recommendation, and POI recommendation. We also devote a section to discuss the explanation perspectives in broader IR and AI/ML research. We end the survey by discussing potential future directions to promote the explainable recommendation research area and beyond.
There is an increasing demand for algorithms to explain their outcomes. So far, there is no method that explains the rankings produced by a ranking algorithm. To address this gap we propose LISTEN, a LISTwise ExplaiNer, to explain rankings produced by a ranking algorithm. To efficiently use LISTEN in production, we train a neural network to learn the underlying explanation space created by LISTEN; we call this model Q-LISTEN. We show that LISTEN produces faithful explanations and that Q-LISTEN is able to learn these explanations. Moreover, we show that LISTEN is safe to use in a real world environment: users of a news recommendation system do not behave significantly differently when they are exposed to explanations generated by LISTEN instead of manually generated explanations.
小貼士
登錄享
相關主題
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191