Numerous government initiatives (e.g. the EU with GDPR) are coming to the conclusion that the increasing complexity of modern software systems must be contrasted with some Rights to Explanation and metrics for the Impact Assessment of these tools, that allow humans to understand and oversee the output of Automated Decision Making systems. Explainable AI was born as a pathway to allow humans to explore and understand the inner working of complex systems. But establishing what is an explanation and objectively evaluating explainability, are not trivial tasks. With this paper, we present a new model-agnostic metric to measure the Degree of eXplainability of (correct) information in an objective way, exploiting a specific theoretical model from Ordinary Language Philosophy called the Achinstein's Theory of Explanations, implemented with an algorithm relying on deep language models for knowledge graph extraction and information retrieval. In order to understand whether this metric is actually behaving as explainability is expected to, we have devised a few experiments and user-studies involving more than 160 participants evaluating two realistic AI-based systems for healthcare and finance using famous AI technology including Artificial Neural Networks and TreeSHAP. The results we obtained are very encouraging, suggesting that our proposed metric for measuring the Degree of eXplainability is robust on several scenarios and it can be eventually exploited for a lawful Impact Assessment of an Automated Decision Making system.
相關內容
What does it mean for a generative AI model to be explainable? The emergent discipline of explainable AI (XAI) has made great strides in helping people understand discriminative models. Less attention has been paid to generative models that produce artifacts, rather than decisions, as output. Meanwhile, generative AI (GenAI) technologies are maturing and being applied to application domains such as software engineering. Using scenario-based design and question-driven XAI design approaches, we explore users' explainability needs for GenAI in three software engineering use cases: natural language to code, code translation, and code auto-completion. We conducted 9 workshops with 43 software engineers in which real examples from state-of-the-art generative AI models were used to elicit users' explainability needs. Drawing from prior work, we also propose 4 types of XAI features for GenAI for code and gathered additional design ideas from participants. Our work explores explainability needs for GenAI for code and demonstrates how human-centered approaches can drive the technical development of XAI in novel domains.
In recent years, several results in the supervised learning setting suggested that classical statistical learning-theoretic measures, such as VC dimension, do not adequately explain the performance of deep learning models which prompted a slew of work in the infinite-width and iteration regimes. However, there is little theoretical explanation for the success of neural networks beyond the supervised setting. In this paper we argue that, under some distributional assumptions, classical learning-theoretic measures can sufficiently explain generalization for graph neural networks in the transductive setting. In particular, we provide a rigorous analysis of the performance of neural networks in the context of transductive inference, specifically by analysing the generalisation properties of graph convolutional networks for the problem of node classification. While VC Dimension does result in trivial generalisation error bounds in this setting as well, we show that transductive Rademacher complexity can explain the generalisation properties of graph convolutional networks for stochastic block models. We further use the generalisation error bounds based on transductive Rademacher complexity to demonstrate the role of graph convolutions and network architectures in achieving smaller generalisation error and provide insights into when the graph structure can help in learning. The findings of this paper could re-new the interest in studying generalisation in neural networks in terms of learning-theoretic measures, albeit in specific problems.
This PhD thesis contains several contributions to the field of statistical causal modeling. Statistical causal models are statistical models embedded with causal assumptions that allow for the inference and reasoning about the behavior of stochastic systems affected by external manipulation (interventions). This thesis contributes to the research areas concerning the estimation of causal effects, causal structure learning, and distributionally robust (out-of-distribution generalizing) prediction methods. We present novel and consistent linear and non-linear causal effects estimators in instrumental variable settings that employ data-dependent mean squared prediction error regularization. Our proposed estimators show, in certain settings, mean squared error improvements compared to both canonical and state-of-the-art estimators. We show that recent research on distributionally robust prediction methods has connections to well-studied estimators from econometrics. This connection leads us to prove that general K-class estimators possess distributional robustness properties. We, furthermore, propose a general framework for distributional robustness with respect to intervention-induced distributions. In this framework, we derive sufficient conditions for the identifiability of distributionally robust prediction methods and present impossibility results that show the necessity of several of these conditions. We present a new structure learning method applicable in additive noise models with directed trees as causal graphs. We prove consistency in a vanishing identifiability setup and provide a method for testing substructure hypotheses with asymptotic family-wise error control that remains valid post-selection. Finally, we present heuristic ideas for learning summary graphs of nonlinear time-series models.
Deep learning methods are achieving ever-increasing performance on many artificial intelligence tasks. A major limitation of deep models is that they are not amenable to interpretability. This limitation can be circumvented by developing post hoc techniques to explain the predictions, giving rise to the area of explainability. Recently, explainability of deep models on images and texts has achieved significant progress. In the area of graph data, graph neural networks (GNNs) and their explainability are experiencing rapid developments. However, there is neither a unified treatment of GNN explainability methods, nor a standard benchmark and testbed for evaluations. In this survey, we provide a unified and taxonomic view of current GNN explainability methods. Our unified and taxonomic treatments of this subject shed lights on the commonalities and differences of existing methods and set the stage for further methodological developments. To facilitate evaluations, we generate a set of benchmark graph datasets specifically for GNN explainability. We summarize current datasets and metrics for evaluating GNN explainability. Altogether, this work provides a unified methodological treatment of GNN explainability and a standardized testbed for evaluations.
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.
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.
In recent years, misinformation on the Web has become increasingly rampant. The research community has responded by proposing systems and challenges, which are beginning to be useful for (various subtasks of) detecting misinformation. However, most proposed systems are based on deep learning techniques which are fine-tuned to specific domains, are difficult to interpret and produce results which are not machine readable. This limits their applicability and adoption as they can only be used by a select expert audience in very specific settings. In this paper we propose an architecture based on a core concept of Credibility Reviews (CRs) that can be used to build networks of distributed bots that collaborate for misinformation detection. The CRs serve as building blocks to compose graphs of (i) web content, (ii) existing credibility signals --fact-checked claims and reputation reviews of websites--, and (iii) automatically computed reviews. We implement this architecture on top of lightweight extensions to Schema.org and services providing generic NLP tasks for semantic similarity and stance detection. Evaluations on existing datasets of social-media posts, fake news and political speeches demonstrates several advantages over existing systems: extensibility, domain-independence, composability, explainability and transparency via provenance. Furthermore, we obtain competitive results without requiring finetuning and establish a new state of the art on the Clef'18 CheckThat! Factuality task.
Recently, artificial intelligence, especially machine learning has demonstrated remarkable performances in many tasks, from image processing to natural language processing, especially with the advent of deep learning. Along with research progress, machine learning has encroached into many different fields and disciplines. Some of them, such as the medical field, require high level of accountability, and thus transparency, which means we need to be able to explain machine decisions, predictions and justify their reliability. This requires greater interpretability, which often means we need to understand the mechanism underlying the algorithms. Unfortunately, the black-box nature of the deep learning is still unresolved, and many machine decisions are still poorly understood. We provide a review on interpretabilities suggested by different research works and categorize them. Also, within an exhaustive list of papers, we find that interpretability is often algorithm-centric, with few human-subject tests to verify whether proposed methods indeed enhance human interpretability. We explore further into interpretability in the medical field, illustrating the complexity of interpretability issue.
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.
The question addressed in this paper is: If we present to a user an AI system that explains how it works, how do we know whether the explanation works and the user has achieved a pragmatic understanding of the AI? In other words, how do we know that an explanainable AI system (XAI) is any good? Our focus is on the key concepts of measurement. We discuss specific methods for evaluating: (1) the goodness of explanations, (2) whether users are satisfied by explanations, (3) how well users understand the AI systems, (4) how curiosity motivates the search for explanations, (5) whether the user's trust and reliance on the AI are appropriate, and finally, (6) how the human-XAI work system performs. The recommendations we present derive from our integration of extensive research literatures and our own psychometric evaluations.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191