If you are looking for an answer to the question What is Artificial Intelligence? and you only have a minute, then here's the definition the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence offers on its home page: "the scientific understanding of the mechanisms underlying thought and intelligent behavior and their embodiment in machines."
However, if you are fortunate enough to have more than a minute, then please get ready to embark upon an exciting journey exploring AI (but beware, it could last a lifetime) …
Forecasting should be treated for what it really is: a science. Without scientific logic, forecasting often happens on one of the two ends of a spectrum: either overly optimistic or overly pessimistic. Either scenario will affect a company, its investments, and, ultimately, its growth. There is a discipline and rigor to forecasting that can only come when you use data and facts to come to a conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is the result of the end of the quarter or year.
Despite recent advances in Visual QuestionAnswering (VQA), it remains a challenge todetermine how much success can be attributedto sound reasoning and comprehension ability.We seek to investigate this question by propos-ing a new task ofrationale generation. Es-sentially, we task a VQA model with generat-ing rationales for the answers it predicts. Weuse data from the Visual Commonsense Rea-soning (VCR) task, as it contains ground-truthrationales along with visual questions and an-swers. We first investigate commonsense un-derstanding in one of the leading VCR mod-els, ViLBERT, by generating rationales frompretrained weights using a state-of-the-art lan-guage model, GPT-2. Next, we seek to jointlytrain ViLBERT with GPT-2 in an end-to-endfashion with the dual task of predicting the an-swer in VQA and generating rationales. Weshow that this kind of training injects com-monsense understanding in the VQA modelthrough quantitative and qualitative evaluationmetrics
Selective rationalization improves neural network interpretability by identifying a small subset of input features -- the rationale -- that best explains or supports the prediction. A typical rationalization criterion, i.e. maximum mutual information (MMI), finds the rationale that maximizes the prediction performance based only on the rationale. However, MMI can be problematic because it picks up spurious correlations between the input features and the output. Instead, we introduce a game-theoretic invariant rationalization criterion where the rationales are constrained to enable the same predictor to be optimal across different environments. We show both theoretically and empirically that the proposed rationales can rule out spurious correlations, generalize better to different test scenarios, and align better with human judgments. Our data and code are available.
Machine learning models are increasingly integrated into societally critical applications such as recidivism prediction and medical diagnosis, thanks to their superior predictive power. In these applications, however, full automation is often not desired due to ethical and legal concerns. The research community has thus ventured into developing interpretable methods that explain machine predictions. While these explanations are meant to assist humans in understanding machine predictions and thereby allowing humans to make better decisions, this hypothesis is not supported in many recent studies. To improve human decision-making with AI assistance, we propose future directions for closing the gap between the efficacy of explanations and improvement in human performance.
Natural language processing (NLP) is one of the most important technologies to arise in recent years. Specifically, 2019 has been a big year for NLP with the introduction of the revolutionary BERT language representation model. There are a large variety of underlying tasks and machine learning models powering NLP applications. Recently, deep learning approaches have obtained very high performance across many different NLP tasks. Convolutional Neural Network (CNNs) are typically associated with computer vision, but more recently CNNs have been applied to problems in NLP.
Machine learning (ML) systems across many application areas are increasingly demonstrating performance that is beyond that of humans. In response to the proliferation of such models, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has sought to develop techniques that enhance the transparency and interpretability of machine learning methods. In this work, we consider a question not previously explored within the XAI and ML communities: Given a computational system whose performance exceeds that of its human user, can explainable AI capabilities be leveraged to improve the performance of the human? We study this question in the context of the game of Chess, for which computational game engines that surpass the performance of the average player are widely available. We introduce the Rationale-Generating Algorithm, an automated technique for generating rationales for utility-based computational methods, which we evaluate with a multi-day user study against two baselines. The results show that our approach produces rationales that lead to statistically significant improvement in human task performance, demonstrating that rationales automatically generated from an AI's internal task model can be used not only to explain what the system is doing, but also to instruct the user and ultimately improve their task performance.
Drug discovery aims to find novel compounds with specified chemical property profiles. In terms of generative modeling, the goal is to learn to sample molecules in the intersection of multiple property constraints. This task becomes increasingly challenging when there are many property constraints. We propose to offset this complexity by composing molecules from a vocabulary of substructures that we call molecular rationales. These rationales are identified from molecules as substructures that are likely responsible for each property of interest. We then learn to expand rationales into a full molecule using graph generative models. Our final generative model composes molecules as mixtures of multiple rationale completions, and this mixture is fine-tuned to preserve the properties of interest. We evaluate our model on various drug design tasks and demonstrate significant improvements over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of accuracy, diversity, and novelty of generated compounds.
Explanations--a form of post-hoc interpretability--play an instrumental role in making systems accessible as AI continues to proliferate complex and sensitive sociotechnical systems. In this paper, we introduce Human-centered Explainable AI (HCXAI) as an approach that puts the human at the center of technology design. It develops a holistic understanding of "who" the human is by considering the interplay of values, interpersonal dynamics, and the socially situated nature of AI systems. In particular, we advocate for a reflective sociotechnical approach. We illustrate HCXAI through a case study of an explanation system for non-technical end-users that shows how technical advancements and the understanding of human factors co-evolve. Building on the case study, we lay out open research questions pertaining to further refining our understanding of "who" the human is and extending beyond 1-to-1 human-computer interactions. Finally, we propose that a reflective HCXAI paradigm-mediated through the perspective of Critical Technical Practice and supplemented with strategies from HCI, such as value-sensitive design and participatory design--not only helps us understand our intellectual blind spots, but it can also open up new design and research spaces.
This book compiles leading research on the development of explainable and interpretable machine learning methods in the context of computer vision and machine learning. Research progress in computer vision and pattern recognition has led to a variety of modeling techniques with almost human-like performance. Although these models have obtained astounding results, they are limited in their explainability and interpretability: what is the rationale behind the decision made? Hence, while good performance is a critical required characteristic for learning machines, explainability and interpretability capabilities are needed to take learning machines to the next step to include them in decision support systems involving human supervision.
Companies regularly spend millions of dollars producing electronically-stored documents in legal matters. Recently, parties on both sides of the 'legal aisle' are accepting the use of machine learning techniques like text classification to cull massive volumes of data and to identify responsive documents for use in these matters. While text classification is regularly used to reduce the discovery costs in legal matters, it also faces a peculiar perception challenge: amongst lawyers, this technology is sometimes looked upon as a "black box", little information provided for attorneys to understand why documents are classified as responsive. In recent years, a group of AI and ML researchers have been actively researching Explainable AI, in which actions or decisions are human understandable. In legal document review scenarios, a document can be identified as responsive, if one or more of its text snippets are deemed responsive. In these scenarios, if text classification can be used to locate these snippets, then attorneys could easily evaluate the model's classification decision. When deployed with defined and explainable results, text classification can drastically enhance overall quality and speed of the review process by reducing the review time. Moreover, explainable predictive coding provides lawyers with greater confidence in the results of that supervised learning task. This paper describes a framework for explainable text classification as a valuable tool in legal services: for enhancing the quality and efficiency of legal document review and for assisting in locating responsive snippets within responsive documents. This framework has been implemented in our legal analytics product, which has been used in hundreds of legal matters. We also report our experimental results using the data from an actual legal matter that used this type of document review.