A key question in causal inference analyses is how to find subgroups with elevated treatment effects. This paper takes a machine learning approach and introduces a generative model, Causal Rule Sets (CRS), for interpretable subgroup discovery. A CRS model uses a small set of short decision rules to capture a subgroup where the average treatment effect is elevated. We present a Bayesian framework for learning a causal rule set. The Bayesian model consists of a prior that favors simple models for better interpretability as well as avoiding overfitting, and a Bayesian logistic regression that captures the likelihood of data, characterizing the relation between outcomes, attributes, and subgroup membership. The Bayesian model has tunable parameters that can characterize subgroups with various sizes, providing users with more flexible choices of models from the \emph{treatment efficient frontier}. We find maximum a posteriori models using iterative discrete Monte Carlo steps in the joint solution space of rules sets and parameters. To improve search efficiency, we provide theoretically grounded heuristics and bounding strategies to prune and confine the search space. Experiments show that the search algorithm can efficiently recover true underlying subgroups. We apply CRS on public and real-world datasets from domains where interpretability is indispensable. We compare CRS with state-of-the-art rule-based subgroup discovery models. Results show that CRS achieved consistently competitive performance on datasets from various domains, represented by high treatment efficient frontiers.

The 3rd edition of the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's The State of AI Ethics captures the most relevant developments in AI Ethics since October 2020. It aims to help anyone, from machine learning experts to human rights activists and policymakers, quickly digest and understand the field's ever-changing developments. Through research and article summaries, as well as expert commentary, this report distills the research and reporting surrounding various domains related to the ethics of AI, including: algorithmic injustice, discrimination, ethical AI, labor impacts, misinformation, privacy, risk and security, social media, and more. In addition, The State of AI Ethics includes exclusive content written by world-class AI Ethics experts from universities, research institutes, consulting firms, and governments. Unique to this report is "The Abuse and Misogynoir Playbook," written by Dr. Katlyn Tuner (Research Scientist, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT), Dr. Danielle Wood (Assistant Professor, Program in Media Arts and Sciences; Assistant Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics; Lead, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT) and Dr. Catherine D'Ignazio (Assistant Professor, Urban Science and Planning; Director, Data + Feminism Lab, MIT). The piece (and accompanying infographic), is a deep-dive into the historical and systematic silencing, erasure, and revision of Black women's contributions to knowledge and scholarship in the United Stations, and globally. Exposing and countering this Playbook has become increasingly important following the firing of AI Ethics expert Dr. Timnit Gebru (and several of her supporters) at Google. This report should be used not only as a point of reference and insight on the latest thinking in the field of AI Ethics, but should also be used as a tool for introspection as we aim to foster a more nuanced conversation regarding the impacts of AI on the world.

The 4th edition of the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's The State of AI Ethics captures the most relevant developments in the field of AI Ethics since January 2021. This report aims to help anyone, from machine learning experts to human rights activists and policymakers, quickly digest and understand the ever-changing developments in the field. Through research and article summaries, as well as expert commentary, this report distills the research and reporting surrounding various domains related to the ethics of AI, with a particular focus on four key themes: Ethical AI, Fairness & Justice, Humans & Tech, and Privacy. In addition, The State of AI Ethics includes exclusive content written by world-class AI Ethics experts from universities, research institutes, consulting firms, and governments. Opening the report is a long-form piece by Edward Higgs (Professor of History, University of Essex) titled "AI and the Face: A Historian's View." In it, Higgs examines the unscientific history of facial analysis and how AI might be repeating some of those mistakes at scale. The report also features chapter introductions by Alexa Hagerty (Anthropologist, University of Cambridge), Marianna Ganapini (Faculty Director, Montreal AI Ethics Institute), Deborah G. Johnson (Emeritus Professor, Engineering and Society, University of Virginia), and Soraj Hongladarom (Professor of Philosophy and Director, Center for Science, Technology and Society, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok). This report should be used not only as a point of reference and insight on the latest thinking in the field of AI Ethics, but should also be used as a tool for introspection as we aim to foster a more nuanced conversation regarding the impacts of AI on the world.

Educational technologies, and the systems of schooling in which they are deployed, enact particular ideologies about what is important to know and how learners should learn. As artificial intelligence technologies -- in education and beyond -- have led to inequitable outcomes for marginalized communities, various approaches have been developed to evaluate and mitigate AI systems' disparate impact. However, we argue in this paper that the dominant paradigm of evaluating fairness on the basis of performance disparities in AI models is inadequate for confronting the structural inequities that educational AI systems (re)produce. We draw on a lens of structural injustice informed by critical theory and Black feminist scholarship to critically interrogate several widely-studied and widely-adopted categories of educational AI systems and demonstrate how educational AI technologies are bound up in and reproduce historical legacies of structural injustice and inequity, regardless of the parity of their models' performance. We close with alternative visions for a more equitable future for educational AI research.

The recent emergence of deepfake videos leads to an important societal question: how can we know if a video that we watch is real or fake? In three online studies with 15,016 participants, we present authentic videos and deepfakes and ask participants to identify which is which. We compare the performance of ordinary participants against the leading computer vision deepfake detection model and find them similarly accurate while making different kinds of mistakes. Together, participants with access to the model's prediction are more accurate than either alone, but inaccurate model predictions often decrease participants' accuracy. We embed randomized experiments and find: incidental anger decreases participants' performance and obstructing holistic visual processing of faces also hinders participants' performance while mostly not affecting the model's. These results suggest that considering emotional influences and harnessing specialized, holistic visual processing of ordinary people could be promising defenses against machine-manipulated media.

Dialogue systems are a popular Natural Language Processing (NLP) task as it is promising in real-life applications. It is also a complicated task since many NLP tasks deserving study are involved. As a result, a multitude of novel works on this task are carried out, and most of them are deep learning-based due to the outstanding performance. In this survey, we mainly focus on the deep learning-based dialogue systems. We comprehensively review state-of-the-art research outcomes in dialogue systems and analyze them from two angles: model type and system type. Specifically, from the angle of model type, we discuss the principles, characteristics, and applications of different models that are widely used in dialogue systems. This will help researchers acquaint these models and see how they are applied in state-of-the-art frameworks, which is rather helpful when designing a new dialogue system. From the angle of system type, we discuss task-oriented and open-domain dialogue systems as two streams of research, providing insight into the hot topics related. Furthermore, we comprehensively review the evaluation methods and datasets for dialogue systems to pave the way for future research. Finally, some possible research trends are identified based on the recent research outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this survey is the most comprehensive and up-to-date one at present in the area of dialogue systems and dialogue-related tasks, extensively covering the popular frameworks, topics, and datasets. Keywords: Dialogue Systems, Chatbots, Conversational AI, Task-oriented, Open Domain, Chit-chat, Question Answering, Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing, Information Retrieval, Deep Learning, Neural Networks, CNN, RNN, Hierarchical Recurrent Encoder-Decoder, Memory Networks, Attention, Transformer, Pointer Net, CopyNet, Reinforcement Learning, GANs, Knowledge Graph, Survey, Review

Questions of fairness, robustness, and transparency are paramount to address before deploying NLP systems. Central to these concerns is the question of reliability: Can NLP systems reliably treat different demographics fairly and function correctly in diverse and noisy environments? To address this, we argue for the need for reliability testing and contextualize it among existing work on improving accountability. We show how adversarial attacks can be reframed for this goal, via a framework for developing reliability tests. We argue that Figure 1: How DOCTOR can integrate with existing reliability testing -- with an emphasis on interdisciplinary system development workflows. Test (left) and system collaboration -- will enable rigorous development (right) take place in parallel, separate and targeted testing, and aid in the enactment teams. Reliability tests can thus be constructed independent and enforcement of industry standards. of the system development team, either by an internal "red team" or by independent auditors.

While AI has benefited humans, it may also harm humans if not appropriately developed. We conducted a literature review of current related work in developing AI systems from an HCI perspective. Different from other approaches, our focus is on the unique characteristics of AI technology and the differences between non-AI computing systems and AI systems. We further elaborate on the human-centered AI (HCAI) approach that we proposed in 2019. Our review and analysis highlight unique issues in developing AI systems which HCI professionals have not encountered in non-AI computing systems. To further enable the implementation of HCAI, we promote the research and application of human-AI interaction (HAII) as an interdisciplinary collaboration. There are many opportunities for HCI professionals to play a key role to make unique contributions to the main HAII areas as we identified. To support future HCI practice in the HAII area, we also offer enhanced HCI methods and strategic recommendations. In conclusion, we believe that promoting the HAII research and application will further enable the implementation of HCAI, enabling HCI professionals to address the unique issues of AI systems and develop human-centered AI systems.

AI - Artificial Intelligence AGI - Artificial General Intelligence ANN - Artificial Neural Network ANOVA - Analysis of Variance ANT - Actor Network Theory API - Application Programming Interface APX - Amsterdam Power Exchange AVE - Average Variance Extracted BU - Business Unit CART - Classification and Regression Tree CBMV - Crowd-based Business Model Validation CR - Composite Reliability CT - Computed Tomography CVC - Corporate Venture Capital DR - Design Requirement DP - Design Principle DSR - Design Science Research DSS - Decision Support System EEX - European Energy Exchange FsQCA - Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis GUI - Graphical User Interface HI-DSS - Hybrid Intelligence Decision Support System HIT - Human Intelligence Task IoT - Internet of Things IS - Information System IT - Information Technology MCC - Matthews Correlation Coefficient ML - Machine Learning OCT - Opportunity Creation Theory OGEMA 2.0 - Open Gateway Energy Management 2.0 OS - Operating System R&D - Research & Development RE - Renewable Energies RQ - Research Question SVM - Support Vector Machine SSD - Solid-State Drive SDK - Software Development Kit TCP/IP - Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol TCT - Transaction Cost Theory UI - User Interface VaR - Value at Risk VC - Venture Capital VPP - Virtual Power Plant Chapter I

This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence, namely psychology and engineering, and from disciplines aiming to regulate AI innovations, namely AI ethics and law. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems. Relevant concepts are integrated into a matrix intended to help defining more precisely when and how computing tools (programs or devices) may be qualified as AI while highlighting critical features to serve a specific technical, ethical and legal assessment of challenges in AI development. Some adaptations of existing notions of AI characteristics are proposed. The matrix is a risk-based conceptual model designed to allow an empirical, flexible and scalable qualification of AI technologies in the perspective of benefit-risk assessment practices, technological monitoring and regulatory compliance: it offers a structured reflection tool for stakeholders in AI development that are engaged in responsible research and innovation.Pre-print version (achieved on May 2020)