Collaborating Authors

If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniques Artificial Intelligence

In recent years, there has been an explosion of AI research on counterfactual explanations as a solution to the problem of eXplainable AI (XAI). These explanations seem to offer technical, psychological and legal benefits over other explanation techniques. We survey 100 distinct counterfactual explanation methods reported in the literature. This survey addresses the extent to which these methods have been adequately evaluated, both psychologically and computationally, and quantifies the shortfalls occurring. For instance, only 21% of these methods have been user tested. Five key deficits in the evaluation of these methods are detailed and a roadmap, with standardised benchmark evaluations, is proposed to resolve the issues arising; issues, that currently effectively block scientific progress in this field.

Robust Explanations for Visual Question Answering Artificial Intelligence

In this paper, we propose a method to obtain robust explanations for visual question answering(VQA) that correlate well with the answers. Our model explains the answers obtained through a VQA model by providing visual and textual explanations. The main challenges that we address are i) Answers and textual explanations obtained by current methods are not well correlated and ii) Current methods for visual explanation do not focus on the right location for explaining the answer. We address both these challenges by using a collaborative correlated module which ensures that even if we do not train for noise based attacks, the enhanced correlation ensures that the right explanation and answer can be generated. We further show that this also aids in improving the generated visual and textual explanations. The use of the correlated module can be thought of as a robust method to verify if the answer and explanations are coherent. We evaluate this model using VQA-X dataset. We observe that the proposed method yields better textual and visual justification that supports the decision. We showcase the robustness of the model against a noise-based perturbation attack using corresponding visual and textual explanations. A detailed empirical analysis is shown. Here we provide source code link for our model \url{}.

The Promise and Peril of Human Evaluation for Model Interpretability Machine Learning

Transparency, user trust, and human comprehension are popular ethical motivations for interpretable machine learning. In support of these goals, researchers evaluate model explanation performance using humans and real world applications. This alone presents a challenge in many areas of artificial intelligence. In this position paper, we propose a distinction between descriptive and persuasive explanations. We discuss reasoning suggesting that functional interpretability may be correlated with cognitive function and user preferences. If this is indeed the case, evaluation and optimization using functional metrics could perpetuate implicit cognitive bias in explanations that threaten transparency. Finally, we propose two potential research directions to disambiguate cognitive function and explanation models, retaining control over the tradeoff between accuracy and interpretability.

High Court Upholds Prescription Drug Initiative Explanation

U.S. News

The high court this week rejected a challenge to the explanation filed by South Dakota Biotech and Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. They had asked the courts to compel Jackley to rewrite the explanation.

On Validating, Repairing and Refining Heuristic ML Explanations Artificial Intelligence

Recent years have witnessed a fast-growing interest in computing explanations for Machine Learning (ML) models predictions. For non-interpretable ML models, the most commonly used approaches for computing explanations are heuristic in nature. In contrast, recent work proposed rigorous approaches for computing explanations, which hold for a given ML model and prediction over the entire instance space. This paper extends earlier work to the case of boosted trees and assesses the quality of explanations obtained with state-of-the-art heuristic approaches. On most of the datasets considered, and for the vast majority of instances, the explanations obtained with heuristic approaches are shown to be inadequate when the entire instance space is (implicitly) considered.