It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achieving this transparency. We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives (i) meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness" (corresponding to a number of existing notions in the literature), explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences: lean explanations, in terms of goals satisfied and, for some notions of "goodness", alternative decisions, and argumentative explanations, reflecting the decision process leading to the selection, while corresponding to the lean explanations. To define argumentative explanations, we use assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-known form of structured argumentation. Specifically, we define ABA frameworks such that "good" decisions are admissible ABA arguments and draw argumentative explanations from dispute trees sanctioning this admissibility. Finally, we instantiate our overall framework for explainable decision-making to accommodate connections between goals and decisions in terms of decision graphs incorporating defeasible and non-defeasible information.
相關內容
Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have fueled the emergence of human-AI collaboration, a setting where AI is a coequal partner. Especially in clinical decision-making, it has the potential to improve treatment quality by assisting overworked medical professionals. Even though research has started to investigate the utilization of AI for clinical decision-making, its potential benefits do not imply its adoption by medical professionals. While several studies have started to analyze adoption criteria from a technical perspective, research providing a human-centered perspective with a focus on AI's potential for becoming a coequal team member in the decision-making process remains limited. Therefore, in this work, we identify factors for the adoption of human-AI collaboration by conducting a series of semi-structured interviews with experts in the healthcare domain. We identify six relevant adoption factors and highlight existing tensions between them and effective human-AI collaboration.
Training a model with access to human explanations can improve data efficiency and model performance on in- and out-of-domain data. Adding to these empirical findings, similarity with the process of human learning makes learning from explanations a promising way to establish a fruitful human-machine interaction. Several methods have been proposed for improving natural language processing (NLP) models with human explanations, that rely on different explanation types and mechanism for integrating these explanations into the learning process. These methods are rarely compared with each other, making it hard for practitioners to choose the best combination of explanation type and integration mechanism for a specific use-case. In this paper, we give an overview of different methods for learning from human explanations, and discuss different factors that can inform the decision of which method to choose for a specific use-case.
In variable selection, a selection rule that prescribes the permissible sets of selected variables (called a "selection dictionary") is desirable due to the inherent structural constraints among the candidate variables. The methods that can incorporate such restrictions can improve model interpretability and prediction accuracy. Penalized regression can integrate selection rules by assigning the coefficients to different groups and then applying penalties to the groups. However, no general framework has been proposed to formalize selection rules and their applications. In this work, we establish a framework for structured variable selection that can incorporate universal structural constraints. We develop a mathematical language for constructing arbitrary selection rules, where the selection dictionary is formally defined. We show that all selection rules can be represented as a combination of operations on constructs, which can be used to identify the related selection dictionary. One may then apply some criteria to select the best model. We show that the theoretical framework can help to identify the grouping structure in existing penalized regression methods. In addition, we formulate structured variable selection into mixed-integer optimization problems which can be solved by existing software. Finally, we discuss the significance of the framework in the context of statistics.
Structural data well exists in Web applications, such as social networks in social media, citation networks in academic websites, and threads data in online forums. Due to the complex topology, it is difficult to process and make use of the rich information within such data. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown great advantages on learning representations for structural data. However, the non-transparency of the deep learning models makes it non-trivial to explain and interpret the predictions made by GNNs. Meanwhile, it is also a big challenge to evaluate the GNN explanations, since in many cases, the ground-truth explanations are unavailable. In this paper, we take insights of Counterfactual and Factual (CF^2) reasoning from causal inference theory, to solve both the learning and evaluation problems in explainable GNNs. For generating explanations, we propose a model-agnostic framework by formulating an optimization problem based on both of the two casual perspectives. This distinguishes CF^2 from previous explainable GNNs that only consider one of them. Another contribution of the work is the evaluation of GNN explanations. For quantitatively evaluating the generated explanations without the requirement of ground-truth, we design metrics based on Counterfactual and Factual reasoning to evaluate the necessity and sufficiency of the explanations. Experiments show that no matter ground-truth explanations are available or not, CF^2 generates better explanations than previous state-of-the-art methods on real-world datasets. Moreover, the statistic analysis justifies the correlation between the performance on ground-truth evaluation and our proposed metrics.
Predictions obtained by, e.g., artificial neural networks have a high accuracy but humans often perceive the models as black boxes. Insights about the decision making are mostly opaque for humans. Particularly understanding the decision making in highly sensitive areas such as healthcare or fifinance, is of paramount importance. The decision-making behind the black boxes requires it to be more transparent, accountable, and understandable for humans. This survey paper provides essential definitions, an overview of the different principles and methodologies of explainable Supervised Machine Learning (SML). We conduct a state-of-the-art survey that reviews past and recent explainable SML approaches and classifies them according to the introduced definitions. Finally, we illustrate principles by means of an explanatory case study and discuss important future directions.
Machine learning plays a role in many deployed decision systems, often in ways that are difficult or impossible to understand by human stakeholders. Explaining, in a human-understandable way, the relationship between the input and output of machine learning models is essential to the development of trustworthy machine-learning-based systems. A burgeoning body of research seeks to define the goals and methods of explainability in machine learning. In this paper, we seek to review and categorize research on counterfactual explanations, a specific class of explanation that provides a link between what could have happened had input to a model been changed in a particular way. Modern approaches to counterfactual explainability in machine learning draw connections to the established legal doctrine in many countries, making them appealing to fielded systems in high-impact areas such as finance and healthcare. Thus, we design a rubric with desirable properties of counterfactual explanation algorithms and comprehensively evaluate all currently-proposed algorithms against that rubric. Our rubric provides easy comparison and comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and serves as an introduction to major research themes in this field. We also identify gaps and discuss promising research directions in the space of counterfactual explainability.
Interest in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence has been growing for decades and has accelerated recently. As Artificial Intelligence models have become more complex, and often more opaque, with the incorporation of complex machine learning techniques, explainability has become more critical. Recently, researchers have been investigating and tackling explainability with a user-centric focus, looking for explanations to consider trustworthiness, comprehensibility, explicit provenance, and context-awareness. In this chapter, we leverage our survey of explanation literature in Artificial Intelligence and closely related fields and use these past efforts to generate a set of explanation types that we feel reflect the expanded needs of explanation for today's artificial intelligence applications. We define each type and provide an example question that would motivate the need for this style of explanation. We believe this set of explanation types will help future system designers in their generation and prioritization of requirements and further help generate explanations that are better aligned to users' and situational needs.
In this monograph, I introduce the basic concepts of Online Learning through a modern view of Online Convex Optimization. Here, online learning refers to the framework of regret minimization under worst-case assumptions. I present first-order and second-order algorithms for online learning with convex losses, in Euclidean and non-Euclidean settings. All the algorithms are clearly presented as instantiation of Online Mirror Descent or Follow-The-Regularized-Leader and their variants. Particular attention is given to the issue of tuning the parameters of the algorithms and learning in unbounded domains, through adaptive and parameter-free online learning algorithms. Non-convex losses are dealt through convex surrogate losses and through randomization. The bandit setting is also briefly discussed, touching on the problem of adversarial and stochastic multi-armed bandits. These notes do not require prior knowledge of convex analysis and all the required mathematical tools are rigorously explained. Moreover, all the proofs have been carefully chosen to be as simple and as short as possible.
Explainable Recommendation refers to the personalized recommendation algorithms that address the problem of why -- they not only provide the user with the recommendations, but also make the user aware why such items are recommended by generating recommendation explanations, which help to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, persuasiveness, and user satisfaction of recommender systems. In recent years, a large number of explainable recommendation approaches -- especially model-based explainable recommendation algorithms -- have been proposed and adopted in real-world systems. In this survey, we review the work on explainable recommendation that has been published in or before the year of 2018. We first high-light 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 itself in terms of three aspects: 1) We provide a chronological research line of explanations in recommender systems, including the user study approaches in the early years, as well as the more recent model-based approaches. 2) We provide a taxonomy for explainable recommendation algorithms, including user-based, item-based, model-based, and post-model explanations. 3) We summarize the application of explainable recommendation in different recommendation tasks, including product recommendation, social recommendation, POI recommendation, etc. We devote a chapter to discuss the explanation perspectives in the broader IR and machine learning settings, as well as their relationship with explainable recommendation research. We end the survey by discussing potential future research directions to promote the explainable recommendation research area.
Providing model-generated explanations in recommender systems is important to user experience. State-of-the-art recommendation algorithms -- especially the collaborative filtering (CF) based approaches with shallow or deep models -- usually work with various unstructured information sources for recommendation, such as textual reviews, visual images, and various implicit or explicit feedbacks. Though structured knowledge bases were considered in content-based approaches, they have been largely ignored recently due to the availability of vast amount of data and the learning power of many complex models. However, structured knowledge bases exhibit unique advantages in personalized recommendation systems. When the explicit knowledge about users and items is considered for recommendation, the system could provide highly customized recommendations based on users' historical behaviors and the knowledge is helpful for providing informed explanations regarding the recommended items. In this work, we propose to reason over knowledge base embeddings for explainable recommendation. Specifically, we propose a knowledge base representation learning framework to embed heterogeneous entities for recommendation, and based on the embedded knowledge base, a soft matching algorithm is proposed to generate personalized explanations for the recommended items. Experimental results on real-world e-commerce datasets verified the superior recommendation performance and the explainability power of our approach compared with state-of-the-art baselines.
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