Goto

Collaborating Authors

 Explanation & Argumentation


INGREX: An Interactive Explanation Framework for Graph Neural Networks

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are widely used in many modern applications, necessitating explanations for their decisions. However, the complexity of GNNs makes it difficult to explain predictions. Even though several methods have been proposed lately, they can only provide simple and static explanations, which are difficult for users to understand in many scenarios. Therefore, we introduce INGREX, an interactive explanation framework for GNNs designed to aid users in comprehending model predictions. Our framework is implemented based on multiple explanation algorithms and advanced libraries. We demonstrate our framework in three scenarios covering common demands for GNN explanations to present its effectiveness and helpfulness.


Forecasting Patient Flows with Pandemic Induced Concept Drift using Explainable Machine Learning

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Accurately forecasting patient arrivals at Urgent Care Clinics (UCCs) and Emergency Departments (EDs) is important for effective resourcing and patient care. However, correctly estimating patient flows is not straightforward since it depends on many drivers. The predictability of patient arrivals has recently been further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic conditions and the resulting lockdowns. This study investigates how a suite of novel quasi-real-time variables like Google search terms, pedestrian traffic, the prevailing incidence levels of influenza, as well as the COVID-19 Alert Level indicators can both generally improve the forecasting models of patient flows and effectively adapt the models to the unfolding disruptions of pandemic conditions. This research also uniquely contributes to the body of work in this domain by employing tools from the eXplainable AI field to investigate more deeply the internal mechanics of the models than has previously been done. The Voting ensemble-based method combining machine learning and statistical techniques was the most reliable in our experiments. Our study showed that the prevailing COVID-19 Alert Level feature together with Google search terms and pedestrian traffic were effective at producing generalisable forecasts. The implications of this study are that proxy variables can effectively augment standard autoregressive features to ensure accurate forecasting of patient flows. The experiments showed that the proposed features are potentially effective model inputs for preserving forecast accuracies in the event of future pandemic outbreaks.


Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for AI & ML Engineers

#artificialintelligence

Hello AI&ML Engineers, as you all know, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning Engineering are the fastest growing filed, and almost all industries are adopting them to enhance and expedite their business decisions and needs; for the same, they are working on various aspects and preparing the data for the AIML platform with the help of SMEs and AIML Experts to build the solutions. Things are not stopping there. To give more clarity, end users or stakeholders are looking for more clarity on solutions and justifications. This grey area is the so-called Black-Box. Now in industry, the expensive addon in this series is the so-called Explainable AI (XAI) and hope you heard about this terminology.


Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI)

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has recently gained a swell of interest, as many Artificial Intelligence (AI) practitioners and developers are compelled to rationalize how such AI-based systems work. Decades back, most XAI systems were developed as knowledge-based or expert systems. These systems assumed reasoning for the technical description of an explanation, with little regard for the user's cognitive capabilities. The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback, which are essential for XAI system evaluation. To this end, we propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding. In this regard, we adopt Bloom's taxonomy, a widely accepted model for assessing the user's cognitive capability. We utilize the counterfactual explanations as an explanation-providing medium encompassed with user feedback to validate the levels of understanding about the explanation at each cognitive level and improvise the explanation generation methods accordingly.


Computing Rule-Based Explanations by Leveraging Counterfactuals

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Sophisticated machine models are increasingly used for high-stakes decisions in everyday life. There is an urgent need to develop effective explanation techniques for such automated decisions. Rule-Based Explanations have been proposed for high-stake decisions like loan applications, because they increase the users' trust in the decision. However, rule-based explanations are very inefficient to compute, and existing systems sacrifice their quality in order to achieve reasonable performance. We propose a novel approach to compute rule-based explanations, by using a different type of explanation, Counterfactual Explanations, for which several efficient systems have already been developed. We prove a Duality Theorem, showing that rule-based and counterfactual-based explanations are dual to each other, then use this observation to develop an efficient algorithm for computing rule-based explanations, which uses the counterfactual-based explanation as an oracle. We conduct extensive experiments showing that our system computes rule-based explanations of higher quality, and with the same or better performance, than two previous systems, MinSetCover and Anchor.


XMD: An End-to-End Framework for Interactive Explanation-Based Debugging of NLP Models

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

NLP models are susceptible to learning spurious biases (i.e., bugs) that work on some datasets but do not properly reflect the underlying task. Explanation-based model debugging aims to resolve spurious biases by showing human users explanations of model behavior, asking users to give feedback on the behavior, then using the feedback to update the model. While existing model debugging methods have shown promise, their prototype-level implementations provide limited practical utility. Thus, we propose XMD: the first open-source, end-to-end framework for explanation-based model debugging. Given task- or instance-level explanations, users can flexibly provide various forms of feedback via an intuitive, web-based UI. After receiving user feedback, XMD automatically updates the model in real time, by regularizing the model so that its explanations align with the user feedback. The new model can then be easily deployed into real-world applications via Hugging Face. Using XMD, we can improve the model's OOD performance on text classification tasks by up to 18%.


Explainable AI: A Way To Explain How Your AI Model Works

#artificialintelligence

The explanations show how an AI model works, the expected impact, and any potential human biases. Doing so builds trust in the model's accuracy and fairness. And the transparency encourages AI-powered decision-making.


Improvement-Focused Causal Recourse (ICR)

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Algorithmic recourse recommendations, such as Karimi et al.'s (2021) causal recourse (CR), inform stakeholders of how to act to revert unfavourable decisions. However, some actions lead to acceptance (i.e., revert the model's decision) but do not lead to improvement (i.e., may not revert the underlying real-world state). To recommend such actions is to recommend fooling the predictor. We introduce a novel method, Improvement-Focused Causal Recourse (ICR), which involves a conceptual shift: Firstly, we require ICR recommendations to guide towards improvement. Secondly, we do not tailor the recommendations to be accepted by a specific predictor. Instead, we leverage causal knowledge to design decision systems that predict accurately pre- and post-recourse. As a result, improvement guarantees translate into acceptance guarantees. We demonstrate that given correct causal knowledge, ICR, in contrast to existing approaches, guides towards both acceptance and improvement.


From Black Box to Glass Box: Is AI Transparency Still Possible?

#artificialintelligence

Explainable AI typically involves tools & techniques to understand how a complex model behaves, in a simple, straightforward and intuitive way so humans can understand it. It answers why an automated decision making tool resulted in a specific output that impacts customers, but doesn't explain how. It's predicted the explainable AI market size is estimated to reach $21.8 billion by 2030, up from $4.1 billion in 2021. And Gartner's crystal ball paints a picture that "by 2025, 30% of government and large enterprise contracts for the purchase of AI products and services will require the use of explainable and ethical AI." So, what's fueling predicted market growth? The accelerant for the explainable AI market is due in part to EU advent of GPDR's Article 13-15 and 22, which establishes rights specific to algorithmic decision making, including a right of both notification and access to meaningful information about the logic involved and the right of the significance of and envisioned effects of solely automated decision making.


What is Explainable AI?

#artificialintelligence

Some key differences help separate "regular" AI from explainable AI, but most importantly, XAI implements specific techniques and methods that help ensure each decision in the ML process is traceable and explainable. In comparison, regular AI usually arrives at its result using an ML algorithm, but it is impossible to fully understand how the algorithm arrived at the result. In the case of regular AI, it is extremely difficult to check for accuracy, resulting in a loss of control, accountability, and auditability.