Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.
相關內容
Calls for new metrics, technical standards and governance mechanisms to guide the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in institutions and public administration are now commonplace. Yet, most research and policy efforts aimed at understanding the implications of adopting AI tend to prioritize only a handful of ideas; they do not fully account for all the different perspectives and topics that are potentially relevant. In this position paper, we contend that this omission stems, in part, from what we call the relational problem in socio-technical discourse: fundamental ontological issues have not yet been settled-including semantic ambiguity, a lack of clear relations between concepts and differing standard terminologies. This contributes to the persistence of disparate modes of reasoning to assess institutional AI systems, and the prevalence of conceptual isolation in the fields that study them including ML, human factors, social science and policy. After developing this critique, we offer a way forward by proposing a simple policy and research design tool in the form of a conceptual framework to organize terms across fields-consisting of three horizontal domains for grouping relevant concepts and related methods: Operational, epistemic, and normative. We first situate this framework against the backdrop of recent socio-technical discourse at two premier academic venues, AIES and FAccT, before illustrating how developing suitable metrics, standards, and mechanisms can be aided by operationalizing relevant concepts in each of these domains. Finally, we outline outstanding questions for developing this relational approach to institutional AI research and adoption.
Intelligent vehicles (IVs) have attracted wide attention thanks to the augmented convenience, safety advantages, and potential commercial value. Although a few of autonomous driving unicorns assert that IVs will be commercially deployable by 2025, their deployment is still restricted to small-scale validation due to various issues, among which safety, reliability, and generalization of planning methods are prominent concerns. Precise computation of control commands or trajectories by planning methods remains a prerequisite for IVs, owing to perceptual imperfections under complex environments, which pose an obstacle to the successful commercialization of IVs. This paper aims to review state-of-the-art planning methods, including pipeline planning and end-to-end planning methods. In terms of pipeline methods, a survey of selecting algorithms is provided along with a discussion of the expansion and optimization mechanisms, whereas in end-to-end methods, the training approaches and verification scenarios of driving tasks are points of concern. Experimental platforms are reviewed to facilitate readers in selecting suitable training and validation methods. Finally, the current challenges and future directions are discussed. The side-by-side comparison presented in this survey helps to gain insights into the strengths and limitations of the reviewed methods, which also assists with system-level design choices.
Deep neural network can easily overfit to even noisy labels due to its high capacity, which degrades the generalization performance of a model. To overcome this issue, we propose a new approach for learning from noisy labels (LNL) via post-training, which can significantly improve the generalization performance of any pre-trained model on noisy label data. To this end, we rather exploit the overfitting property of a trained model to identify mislabeled samples. Specifically, our post-training approach gradually removes samples with high influence on the decision boundary and refines the decision boundary to improve generalization performance. Our post-training approach creates great synergies when combined with the existing LNL methods. Experimental results on various real-world and synthetic benchmark datasets demonstrate the validity of our approach in diverse realistic scenarios.
Recent work has proposed artificial intelligence (AI) models that can learn to decide whether to make a prediction for an instance of a task or to delegate it to a human by considering both parties' capabilities. In simulations with synthetically generated or context-independent human predictions, delegation can help improve the performance of human-AI teams -- compared to humans or the AI model completing the task alone. However, so far, it remains unclear how humans perform and how they perceive the task when they are aware that an AI model delegated task instances to them. In an experimental study with 196 participants, we show that task performance and task satisfaction improve through AI delegation, regardless of whether humans are aware of the delegation. Additionally, we identify humans' increased levels of self-efficacy as the underlying mechanism for these improvements in performance and satisfaction. Our findings provide initial evidence that allowing AI models to take over more management responsibilities can be an effective form of human-AI collaboration in workplaces.
In many scenarios, the interpretability of machine learning models is a highly required but difficult task. To explain the individual predictions of such models, local model-agnostic approaches have been proposed. However, the process generating the explanations can be, for a user, as mysterious as the prediction to be explained. Furthermore, interpretability methods frequently lack theoretical guarantees, and their behavior on simple models is frequently unknown. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that an explainer behaves as expected on a cutting-edge model, we can at least ensure that everything works on simple, already interpretable models. In this paper, we present a theoretical analysis of Anchors (Ribeiro et al., 2018): a popular rule-based interpretability method that highlights a small set of words to explain a text classifier's decision. After formalizing its algorithm and providing useful insights, we demonstrate mathematically that Anchors produces meaningful results when used with linear text classifiers on top of a TF-IDF vectorization. We believe that our analysis framework can aid in the development of new explainability methods based on solid theoretical foundations.
Protecting personal data against the exploitation of machine learning models is of paramount importance. Recently, availability attacks have shown great promise to provide an extra layer of protection against the unauthorized use of data to train neural networks. These methods aim to add imperceptible noise to clean data so that the neural networks cannot extract meaningful patterns from the protected data, claiming that they can make personal data "unexploitable." In this paper, we provide a strong countermeasure against such approaches, showing that unexploitable data might only be an illusion. In particular, we leverage the power of diffusion models and show that a carefully designed denoising process can defuse the ramifications of the data-protecting perturbations. We rigorously analyze our algorithm, and theoretically prove that the amount of required denoising is directly related to the magnitude of the data-protecting perturbations. Our approach, called AVATAR, delivers state-of-the-art performance against a suite of recent availability attacks in various scenarios, outperforming adversarial training. Our findings call for more research into making personal data unexploitable, showing that this goal is far from over.
Decision-making algorithms are being used in important decisions, such as who should be enrolled in health care programs and be hired. Even though these systems are currently deployed in high-stakes scenarios, many of them cannot explain their decisions. This limitation has prompted the Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) initiative, which aims to make algorithms explainable to comply with legal requirements, promote trust, and maintain accountability. This paper questions whether and to what extent explainability can help solve the responsibility issues posed by autonomous AI systems. We suggest that XAI systems that provide post-hoc explanations could be seen as blameworthy agents, obscuring the responsibility of developers in the decision-making process. Furthermore, we argue that XAI could result in incorrect attributions of responsibility to vulnerable stakeholders, such as those who are subjected to algorithmic decisions (i.e., patients), due to a misguided perception that they have control over explainable algorithms. This conflict between explainability and accountability can be exacerbated if designers choose to use algorithms and patients as moral and legal scapegoats. We conclude with a set of recommendations for how to approach this tension in the socio-technical process of algorithmic decision-making and a defense of hard regulation to prevent designers from escaping responsibility.
This paper focuses on the expected difference in borrower's repayment when there is a change in the lender's credit decisions. Classical estimators overlook the confounding effects and hence the estimation error can be magnificent. As such, we propose another approach to construct the estimators such that the error can be greatly reduced. The proposed estimators are shown to be unbiased, consistent, and robust through a combination of theoretical analysis and numerical testing. Moreover, we compare the power of estimating the causal quantities between the classical estimators and the proposed estimators. The comparison is tested across a wide range of models, including linear regression models, tree-based models, and neural network-based models, under different simulated datasets that exhibit different levels of causality, different degrees of nonlinearity, and different distributional properties. Most importantly, we apply our approaches to a large observational dataset provided by a global technology firm that operates in both the e-commerce and the lending business. We find that the relative reduction of estimation error is strikingly substantial if the causal effects are accounted for correctly.
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.
Multi-relation Question Answering is a challenging task, due to the requirement of elaborated analysis on questions and reasoning over multiple fact triples in knowledge base. In this paper, we present a novel model called Interpretable Reasoning Network that employs an interpretable, hop-by-hop reasoning process for question answering. The model dynamically decides which part of an input question should be analyzed at each hop; predicts a relation that corresponds to the current parsed results; utilizes the predicted relation to update the question representation and the state of the reasoning process; and then drives the next-hop reasoning. Experiments show that our model yields state-of-the-art results on two datasets. More interestingly, the model can offer traceable and observable intermediate predictions for reasoning analysis and failure diagnosis, thereby allowing manual manipulation in predicting the final answer.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191