Counterfactual explanations are an increasingly popular form of post hoc explanation due to their (i) applicability across problem domains, (ii) proposed legal compliance (e.g., with GDPR), and (iii) reliance on the contrastive nature of human explanation. Although counterfactual explanations are normally used to explain individual predictive-instances, we explore a novel use case in which groups of similar instances are explained in a collective fashion using ``group counterfactuals'' (e.g., to highlight a repeating pattern of illness in a group of patients). These group counterfactuals meet a human preference for coherent, broad explanations covering multiple events/instances. A novel, group-counterfactual algorithm is proposed to generate high-coverage explanations that are faithful to the to-be-explained model. This explanation strategy is also evaluated in a large, controlled user study (N=207), using objective (i.e., accuracy) and subjective (i.e., confidence, explanation satisfaction, and trust) psychological measures. The results show that group counterfactuals elicit modest but definite improvements in people's understanding of an AI system. The implications of these findings for counterfactual methods and for XAI are discussed.
相關內容
The causal capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a matter of significant debate, with critical implications for the use of LLMs in societally impactful domains such as medicine, science, law, and policy. We further our understanding of LLMs and their causal implications, considering the distinctions between different types of causal reasoning tasks, as well as the entangled threats of construct and measurement validity. LLM-based methods establish new state-of-the-art accuracies on multiple causal benchmarks. Algorithms based on GPT-3.5 and 4 outperform existing algorithms on a pairwise causal discovery task (97%, 13 points gain), counterfactual reasoning task (92%, 20 points gain), and actual causality (86% accuracy in determining necessary and sufficient causes in vignettes). At the same time, LLMs exhibit unpredictable failure modes and we provide some techniques to interpret their robustness. Crucially, LLMs perform these causal tasks while relying on sources of knowledge and methods distinct from and complementary to non-LLM based approaches. Specifically, LLMs bring capabilities so far understood to be restricted to humans, such as using collected knowledge to generate causal graphs or identifying background causal context from natural language. We envision LLMs to be used alongside existing causal methods, as a proxy for human domain knowledge and to reduce human effort in setting up a causal analysis, one of the biggest impediments to the widespread adoption of causal methods. We also see existing causal methods as promising tools for LLMs to formalize, validate, and communicate their reasoning especially in high-stakes scenarios. In capturing common sense and domain knowledge about causal mechanisms and supporting translation between natural language and formal methods, LLMs open new frontiers for advancing the research, practice, and adoption of causality.
Unpacking and comprehending how black-box machine learning algorithms make decisions has been a persistent challenge for researchers and end-users. Explaining time-series predictive models is useful for clinical applications with high stakes to understand the behavior of prediction models. However, existing approaches to explain such models are frequently unique to data where the features do not have a time-varying component. In this paper, we introduce WindowSHAP, a model-agnostic framework for explaining time-series classifiers using Shapley values. We intend for WindowSHAP to mitigate the computational complexity of calculating Shapley values for long time-series data as well as improve the quality of explanations. WindowSHAP is based on partitioning a sequence into time windows. Under this framework, we present three distinct algorithms of Stationary, Sliding and Dynamic WindowSHAP, each evaluated against baseline approaches, KernelSHAP and TimeSHAP, using perturbation and sequence analyses metrics. We applied our framework to clinical time-series data from both a specialized clinical domain (Traumatic Brain Injury - TBI) as well as a broad clinical domain (critical care medicine). The experimental results demonstrate that, based on the two quantitative metrics, our framework is superior at explaining clinical time-series classifiers, while also reducing the complexity of computations. We show that for time-series data with 120 time steps (hours), merging 10 adjacent time points can reduce the CPU time of WindowSHAP by 80% compared to KernelSHAP. We also show that our Dynamic WindowSHAP algorithm focuses more on the most important time steps and provides more understandable explanations. As a result, WindowSHAP not only accelerates the calculation of Shapley values for time-series data, but also delivers more understandable explanations with higher quality.
Multi-modal search engines have experienced significant growth and widespread use in recent years, making them the second most common internet use. While search engine systems offer a range of services, the image search field has recently become a focal point in the information retrieval community, as the adage goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Although popular search engines like Google excel at image search accuracy and agility, there is an ongoing debate over whether their search results can be biased in terms of gender, language, demographics, socio-cultural aspects, and stereotypes. This potential for bias can have a significant impact on individuals' perceptions and influence their perspectives. In this paper, we present our study on bias and fairness in web search, with a focus on keyword-based image search. We first discuss several kinds of biases that exist in search systems and why it is important to mitigate them. We narrow down our study to assessing and mitigating occupational stereotypes in image search, which is a prevalent fairness issue in image retrieval. For the assessment of stereotypes, we take gender as an indicator. We explore various open-source and proprietary APIs for gender identification from images. With these, we examine the extent of gender bias in top-tanked image search results obtained for several occupational keywords. To mitigate the bias, we then propose a fairness-aware re-ranking algorithm that optimizes (a) relevance of the search result with the keyword and (b) fairness w.r.t genders identified. We experiment on 100 top-ranked images obtained for 10 occupational keywords and consider random re-ranking and re-ranking based on relevance as baselines. Our experimental results show that the fairness-aware re-ranking algorithm produces rankings with better fairness scores and competitive relevance scores than the baselines.
Before deploying a black-box model in high-stakes problems, it is important to evaluate the model's performance on sensitive subpopulations. For example, in a recidivism prediction task, we may wish to identify demographic groups for which our prediction model has unacceptably high false positive rates or certify that no such groups exist. In this paper, we frame this task, often referred to as "fairness auditing," in terms of multiple hypothesis testing. We show how the bootstrap can be used to simultaneously bound performance disparities over a collection of groups with statistical guarantees. Our methods can be used to flag subpopulations affected by model underperformance, and certify subpopulations for which the model performs adequately. Crucially, our audit is model-agnostic and applicable to nearly any performance metric or group fairness criterion. Our methods also accommodate extremely rich -- even infinite -- collections of subpopulations. Further, we generalize beyond subpopulations by showing how to assess performance over certain distribution shifts. We test the proposed methods on benchmark datasets in predictive inference and algorithmic fairness and find that our audits can provide interpretable and trustworthy guarantees.
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have raised questions about whether the use of AI is appropriate and legal in various professional contexts. Here, we present a perspective on how scholars may approach writing in conjunction with AI, and offer approaches to evaluating whether or not such AI-writing violates copyright or falls within the safe harbor of fair use. We present a set of best practices for standard of care with regard to plagiarism, copyright, and fair use. As AI is likely to grow more capable in the coming years, it is appropriate to begin integrating AI into scholarly writing activities. We offer a framework for establishing sound legal and scholarly foundations.
In recent years, Graph Neural Networks have reported outstanding performance in tasks like community detection, molecule classification and link prediction. However, the black-box nature of these models prevents their application in domains like health and finance, where understanding the models' decisions is essential. Counterfactual Explanations (CE) provide these understandings through examples. Moreover, the literature on CE is flourishing with novel explanation methods which are tailored to graph learning. In this survey, we analyse the existing Graph Counterfactual Explanation methods, by providing the reader with an organisation of the literature according to a uniform formal notation for definitions, datasets, and metrics, thus, simplifying potential comparisons w.r.t to the method advantages and disadvantages. We discussed seven methods and sixteen synthetic and real datasets providing details on the possible generation strategies. We highlight the most common evaluation strategies and formalise nine of the metrics used in the literature. We first introduce the evaluation framework GRETEL and how it is possible to extend and use it while providing a further dimension of comparison encompassing reproducibility aspects. Finally, we provide a discussion on how counterfactual explanation interplays with privacy and fairness, before delving into open challenges and future works.
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.
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.
Most existing works in visual question answering (VQA) are dedicated to improving the accuracy of predicted answers, while disregarding the explanations. We argue that the explanation for an answer is of the same or even more importance compared with the answer itself, since it makes the question and answering process more understandable and traceable. To this end, we propose a new task of VQA-E (VQA with Explanation), where the computational models are required to generate an explanation with the predicted answer. We first construct a new dataset, and then frame the VQA-E problem in a multi-task learning architecture. Our VQA-E dataset is automatically derived from the VQA v2 dataset by intelligently exploiting the available captions. We have conducted a user study to validate the quality of explanations synthesized by our method. We quantitatively show that the additional supervision from explanations can not only produce insightful textual sentences to justify the answers, but also improve the performance of answer prediction. Our model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by a clear margin on the VQA v2 dataset.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191