Many applications of data-driven models demand transparency of decisions, especially in health care, criminal justice, and other high-stakes environments. Modern trends in machine learning research have led to algorithms that are increasingly intricate to the degree that they are considered to be black boxes. In an effort to reduce the opacity of decisions, methods have been proposed to construe the inner workings of such models in a human-comprehensible manner. These post hoc techniques are described as being universal explainers - capable of faithfully augmenting decisions with algorithmic insight. Unfortunately, there is little agreement about what constitutes a "good" explanation. Moreover, current methods of explanation evaluation are derived from either subjective or proxy means. In this work, we propose a framework for the evaluation of post hoc explainers on ground truth that is directly derived from the additive structure of a model. We demonstrate the efficacy of the framework in understanding explainers by evaluating popular explainers on thousands of synthetic and several real-world tasks. The framework unveils that explanations may be accurate but misattribute the importance of individual features.

Recent interest in codifying fairness in Automated Decision Systems (ADS) has resulted in a wide range of formulations of what it means for an algorithmic system to be fair. Most of these propositions are inspired by, but inadequately grounded in, political philosophy scholarship. This paper aims to correct that deficit. We introduce a taxonomy of fairness ideals using doctrines of Equality of Opportunity (EOP) from political philosophy, clarifying their conceptions in philosophy and the proposed codification in fair machine learning. We arrange these fairness ideals onto an EOP spectrum, which serves as a useful frame to guide the design of a fair ADS in a given context. We use our fairness-as-EOP framework to re-interpret the impossibility results from a philosophical perspective, as the in-compatibility between different value systems, and demonstrate the utility of the framework with several real-world and hypothetical examples. Through our EOP-framework we hope to answer what it means for an ADS to be fair from a moral and political philosophy standpoint, and to pave the way for similar scholarship from ethics and legal experts.

Organizations of all sizes have accelerated the rate at which they employ AI models to advance digital business transformation initiatives. But in the absence of any clear-cut regulations, many of these organizations don't know with any certainty whether those AI models will one day run afoul of new AI regulations. Ted Kwartler, vice president of Trusted AI at DataRobot, talked with VentureBeat about why it's critical for AI models to make predictions "humbly" to make sure they don't drift or, one day, potentially run afoul of government regulations. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. VentureBeat: Why do we need AI to be humble?

Content monitoring through AI technologies, smart cameras for facial identification, DNA profiling algorithms are some of the techniques witnessing a surge throughout the world. Technologies provide us with reliable and trustable data to bank upon, but the questions arising on its accuracy can be a debatable issue. Let's have a look at a recent case to understand the apprehension. Recently, in two separate judgements -- a judge from the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey and a federal judge in Pennsylvania in the United States have ordered the prosecutor to hand over the source code of TrueAllele by Cybergenetics. The software program ran different DNA data available on a gun through complex statistical algorithms to compare the probability of a specific person's DNA being present.

The European Union has introduced a proposal to regulate the development of AI, with the goal of protecting the rights and well-being of its citizens. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) is designed to address certain potentially risky, high-stakes use cases of AI, including biometric surveillance, bank lending, test scoring, criminal justice, and behavior manipulation techniques, among others. The goal of the AIA is to regulate the development of these applications of AI in a way that will foster increased trust in its adoption. Similar to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the AIA law will apply to anyone selling or providing relevant services to EU citizens. GDPR spearheaded data privacy regulations across the United States and around the world.

Discriminating the matched named entity pairs or identifying the entities' canonical forms are critical in text mining tasks. More precise named entity normalization in text mining will benefit other subsequent text analytic applications. We built the named entity normalization model with a novel Edge Weight Updating Neural Network. Our proposed model when tested on four different datasets achieved state-of-the-art results. We, next, verify our model's performance on NCBI Disease, BC5CDR Disease, and BC5CDR Chemical databases, which are widely used named entity normalization datasets in the bioinformatics field. We also tested our model with our own financial named entity normalization dataset to validate the efficacy for more general applications. Using the constructed dataset, we differentiate named entity pairs. Our model achieved the highest named entity normalization performances in terms of various evaluation metrics.

High-dimensional observations are a major challenge in the application of model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) to real-world environments. To handle high-dimensional sensory inputs, existing approaches use representation learning to map high-dimensional observations into a lower-dimensional latent space that is more amenable to dynamics estimation and planning. In this work, we present an information-theoretic approach that employs temporal predictive coding to encode elements in the environment that can be predicted across time. Since this approach focuses on encoding temporally-predictable information, we implicitly prioritize the encoding of task-relevant components over nuisance information within the environment that are provably task-irrelevant. By learning this representation in conjunction with a recurrent state space model, we can then perform planning in latent space. We evaluate our model on a challenging modification of standard DMControl tasks where the background is replaced with natural videos that contain complex but irrelevant information to the planning task. Our experiments show that our model is superior to existing methods in the challenging complex-background setting while remaining competitive with current state-of-the-art models in the standard setting.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a set of techniques that allows the understanding of both technical and non-technical aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. XAI is crucial to help satisfying the increasingly important demand of \emph{trustworthy} Artificial Intelligence, characterized by fundamental characteristics such as respect of human autonomy, prevention of harm, transparency, accountability, etc. Within XAI techniques, counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features (and their corresponding values) that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations, and in particular they fall short of considering the causal impact of such actions. In this paper, we present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations capturing by design the underlying causal relations from the data, and at the same time to provide feasible recommendations to reach the proposed profile. Moreover, our methodology has the advantage that it can be set on top of existing counterfactuals generator algorithms, thus minimising the complexity of imposing additional causal constrains. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach with a set of different experiments using synthetic and real datasets (including a proprietary dataset of the financial domain).

As machine learning (ML) systems take a more prominent and central role in contributing to life-impacting decisions, ensuring their trustworthiness and accountability is of utmost importance. Explanations sit at the core of these desirable attributes of a ML system. The emerging field is frequently called ``Explainable AI (XAI)'' or ``Explainable ML.'' The goal of explainable ML is to intuitively explain the predictions of a ML system, while adhering to the needs to various stakeholders. Many explanation techniques were developed with contributions from both academia and industry. However, there are several existing challenges that have not garnered enough interest and serve as roadblocks to widespread adoption of explainable ML. In this short paper, we enumerate challenges in explainable ML from an industry perspective. We hope these challenges will serve as promising future research directions, and would contribute to democratizing explainable ML.

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) are an emerging technique under the umbrella of interpretability of machine learning (ML) models. They provide ``what if'' feedback of the form ``if an input datapoint were $x'$ instead of $x$, then an ML model's output would be $y'$ instead of $y$.'' Counterfactual explainability for ML models has yet to see widespread adoption in industry. In this short paper, we posit reasons for this slow uptake. Leveraging recent work outlining desirable properties of CFEs and our experience running the ML wing of a model monitoring startup, we identify outstanding obstacles hindering CFE deployment in industry.