Goto

Collaborating Authors

 Explanation & Argumentation


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.


ExPUNations: Augmenting Puns with Keywords and Explanations

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

The tasks of humor understanding and generation are challenging and subjective even for humans, requiring commonsense and real-world knowledge to master. Puns, in particular, add the challenge of fusing that knowledge with the ability to interpret lexical-semantic ambiguity. In this paper, we present the ExPUNations (ExPUN) dataset, in which we augment an existing dataset of puns with detailed crowdsourced annotations of keywords denoting the most distinctive words that make the text funny, pun explanations describing why the text is funny, and fine-grained funniness ratings. This is the first humor dataset with such extensive and fine-grained annotations specifically for puns. Based on these annotations, we propose two tasks: explanation generation to aid with pun classification and keyword-conditioned pun generation, to challenge the current state-of-the-art natural language understanding and generation models' ability to understand and generate humor. We showcase that the annotated keywords we collect are helpful for generating better novel humorous texts in human evaluation, and that our natural language explanations can be leveraged to improve both the accuracy and robustness of humor classifiers.


Full-Text Argumentation Mining on Scientific Publications

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Scholarly Argumentation Mining (SAM) has recently gained attention due to its potential to help scholars with the rapid growth of published scientific literature. It comprises two subtasks: argumentative discourse unit recognition (ADUR) and argumentative relation extraction (ARE), both of which are challenging since they require e.g. the integration of domain knowledge, the detection of implicit statements, and the disambiguation of argument structure. While previous work focused on dataset construction and baseline methods for specific document sections, such as abstract or results, full-text scholarly argumentation mining has seen little progress. In this work, we introduce a sequential pipeline model combining ADUR and ARE for full-text SAM, and provide a first analysis of the performance of pretrained language models (PLMs) on both subtasks. We establish a new SotA for ADUR on the Sci-Arg corpus, outperforming the previous best reported result by a large margin (+7% F1). We also present the first results for ARE, and thus for the full AM pipeline, on this benchmark dataset. Our detailed error analysis reveals that non-contiguous ADUs as well as the interpretation of discourse connectors pose major challenges and that data annotation needs to be more consistent.


eBook: Intuitive Machine Learning and Explainable AI - Machine Learning Techniques

#artificialintelligence

By Vincent Granville Ph.D. Published in September 2022. This book covers the foundations of machine learning, with modern approaches to solving complex problems. Emphasis is on scalability, automation, testing, optimizing, and interpretability (explainable AI). For instance, regression techniques -- including logistic and Lasso -- are presented as a single method, without using advanced linear algebra. There is no need to learn 50 versions when one does it all and more.


The privacy issue of counterfactual explanations: explanation linkage attacks

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Black-box machine learning models are being used in more and more high-stakes domains, which creates a growing need for Explainable AI (XAI). Unfortunately, the use of XAI in machine learning introduces new privacy risks, which currently remain largely unnoticed. We introduce the explanation linkage attack, which can occur when deploying instance-based strategies to find counterfactual explanations. To counter such an attack, we propose k-anonymous counterfactual explanations and introduce pureness as a new metric to evaluate the validity of these k-anonymous counterfactual explanations. Our results show that making the explanations, rather than the whole dataset, k- anonymous, is beneficial for the quality of the explanations.


Diffusion Visual Counterfactual Explanations

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Visual Counterfactual Explanations (VCEs) are an important tool to understand the decisions of an image classifier. They are "small" but "realistic" semantic changes of the image changing the classifier decision. Current approaches for the generation of VCEs are restricted to adversarially robust models and often contain non-realistic artefacts, or are limited to image classification problems with few classes. In this paper, we overcome this by generating Diffusion Visual Counterfactual Explanations (DVCEs) for arbitrary ImageNet classifiers via a diffusion process. Two modifications to the diffusion process are key for our DVCEs: first, an adaptive parameterization, whose hyperparameters generalize across images and models, together with distance regularization and late start of the diffusion process, allow us to generate images with minimal semantic changes to the original ones but different classification. Second, our cone regularization via an adversarially robust model ensures that the diffusion process does not converge to trivial non-semantic changes, but instead produces realistic images of the target class which achieve high confidence by the classifier.