Research Papers

In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Making

Raymond Fok, Daniel S. Weld

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Defect prediction models are proposed to help a team prioritize source code areas files that need Software QualityAssurance (SQA) based on the likelihood of having defects. However, developers may waste their unnecessary effort on the whole filewhile only a small fraction of its source code lines are defective. Indeed, we find that as little as 1%-3% of lines of a file are defective. Hence, in this work, we propose a novel framework (called LINE-DP) to identify defective lines using a model-agnostic technique, i.e., an Explainable AI technique that provides information why the model makes such a prediction. Broadly speaking, our LINE-DP first builds a file-level defect model using code token features. Then, our LINE-DP uses a state-of-the-art model-agnostic technique (i.e.,LIME) to identify risky tokens, i.e., code tokens that lead the file-level defect model to predict that the file will be defective. Then, the lines that contain risky tokens are predicted as defective lines. Through a case study of 32 releases of nine Java open source systems, our evaluation results show that our LINE-DP achieves an average recall of 0.61, a false alarm rate of 0.47, a top 20%LOC recall of0.27, and an initial false alarm of 16, which are statistically better than six baseline approaches. Our evaluation shows that our LINE-DP requires an average computation time of 10 seconds including model construction and defective line identification time. In addition, we find that 63% of defective lines that can be identified by our LINE-DP are related to common defects (e.g., argument change, condition change). These results suggest that our LINE-DP can effectively identify defective lines that contain common defectswhile requiring a smaller amount of inspection effort and a manageable computation cost.

As one of the most pervasive applications of machine learning, recommender systems are playing an important role on assisting human decision making. The satisfaction of users and the interests of platforms are closely related to the quality of the generated recommendation results. However, as a highly data-driven system, recommender system could be affected by data or algorithmic bias and thus generate unfair results, which could weaken the reliance of the systems. As a result, it is crucial to address the potential unfairness problems in recommendation settings. Recently, there has been growing attention on fairness considerations in recommender systems with more and more literature on approaches to promote fairness in recommendation. However, the studies are rather fragmented and lack a systematic organization, thus making it difficult to penetrate for new researchers to the domain. This motivates us to provide a systematic survey of existing works on fairness in recommendation. This survey focuses on the foundations for fairness in recommendation literature. It first presents a brief introduction about fairness in basic machine learning tasks such as classification and ranking in order to provide a general overview of fairness research, as well as introduce the more complex situations and challenges that need to be considered when studying fairness in recommender systems. After that, the survey will introduce fairness in recommendation with a focus on the taxonomies of current fairness definitions, the typical techniques for improving fairness, as well as the datasets for fairness studies in recommendation. The survey also talks about the challenges and opportunities in fairness research with the hope of promoting the fair recommendation research area and beyond.

Operationalising AI governance through ethics-based auditing: An industry case study

Jakob Mokander, Luciano Floridi

Ethics based auditing (EBA) is a structured process whereby an entitys past or present behaviour is assessed for consistency with moral principles or norms. Recently, EBA has attracted much attention as a governance mechanism that may bridge the gap between principles and practice in AI ethics. However, important aspects of EBA (such as the feasibility and effectiveness of different auditing procedures) have yet to be substantiated by empirical research. In this article, we address this knowledge gap by providing insights from a longitudinal industry case study. Over 12 months, we observed and analysed the internal activities of AstraZeneca, a biopharmaceutical company, as it prepared for and underwent an ethics-based AI audit. While previous literature concerning EBA has focused on proposing evaluation metrics or visualisation techniques, our findings suggest that the main difficulties large multinational organisations face when conducting EBA mirror classical governance challenges. These include ensuring harmonised standards across decentralised organisations, demarcating the scope of the audit, driving internal communication and change management, and measuring actual outcomes. The case study presented in this article contributes to the existing literature by providing a detailed description of the organisational context in which EBA procedures must be integrated to be feasible and effective.

The Butterfly Effect in Artificial Intelligence Systems: Implications for AI Bias and Fairness

Emilio Ferrara

The Butterfly Effect, a concept originating from chaos theory, underscores how small changes can have significant and unpredictable impacts on complex systems. In the context of AI fairness and bias, the Butterfly Effect can stem from a variety of sources, such as small biases or skewed data inputs during algorithm development, saddle points in training, or distribution shifts in data between training and testing phases. These seemingly minor alterations can lead to unexpected and substantial unfair outcomes, disproportionately affecting underrepresented individuals or groups and perpetuating pre-existing inequalities. Moreover, the Butterfly Effect can amplify inherent biases within data or algorithms, exacerbate feedback loops, and create vulnerabilities for adversarial attacks. Given the intricate nature of AI systems and their societal implications, it is crucial to thoroughly examine any changes to algorithms or input data for potential unintended consequences. In this paper, we envision both algorithmic and empirical strategies to detect, quantify, and mitigate the Butterfly Effect in AI systems, emphasizing the importance of addressing these challenges to promote fairness and ensure responsible AI development.

Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making

Shuai Ma, Qiaoyi Chen, Xinru Wang +4

In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole. In such a paradigm, humans are found to rarely trigger analytical thinking and face difficulties in communicating the nuances of conflicting opinions to the AI when disagreements occur. To tackle this challenge, we propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making. Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates. To empower AI with deliberative capabilities, we designed Deliberative AI, which leverages large language models (LLMs) as a bridge between humans and domain-specific models to enable flexible conversational interactions and faithful information provision. An exploratory evaluation on a graduate admissions task shows that Deliberative AI outperforms conventional explainable AI (XAI) assistants in improving humans' appropriate reliance and task performance. Based on a mixed-methods analysis of participant behavior, perception, user experience, and open-ended feedback, we draw implications for future AI-assisted decision tool design.

Charting the Sociotechnical Gap in Explainable AI: A Framework to Address the Gap in XAI

Upol Ehsan, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury +1

Explainable AI (XAI) systems are sociotechnical in nature; thus, they are subject to the sociotechnical gap--divide between the technical affordances and the social needs. However, charting this gap is challenging. In the context of XAI, we argue that charting the gap improves our problem understanding, which can reflexively provide actionable insights to improve explainability. Utilizing two case studies in distinct domains, we empirically derive a framework that facilitates systematic charting of the sociotechnical gap by connecting AI guidelines in the context of XAI and elucidating how to use them to address the gap. We apply the framework to a third case in a new domain, showcasing its affordances. Finally, we discuss conceptual implications of the framework, share practical considerations in its operationalization, and offer guidance on transferring it to new contexts. By making conceptual and practical contributions to understanding the sociotechnical gap in XAI, the framework expands the XAI design space.

Predictive modeling is increasingly being employed to assist human decision-makers. One purported advantage of replacing human judgment with computer models in high stakes settings-- such as sentencing, hiring, policing, college admissions, and parole decisions-- is the perceived "neutrality" of computers. It is argued that because computer models do not hold personal prejudice, the predictions they produce will be equally free from prejudice. There is growing recognition that employing algorithms does not remove the potential for bias, and can even amplify it, since training data were inevitably generated by a process that is itself biased. In this paper, we provide a probabilistic definition of algorithmic bias. We propose a method to remove bias from predictive models by removing all information regarding protected variables from the permitted training data. Unlike previous work in this area, our framework is general enough to accommodate arbitrary data types, e.g. binary, continuous, etc. Motivated by models currently in use in the criminal justice system that inform decisions on pre-trial release and paroling, we apply our proposed method to a dataset on the criminal histories of individuals at the time of sentencing to produce "race-neutral" predictions of re-arrest. In the process, we demonstrate that the most common approach to creating "race-neutral" models-- omitting race as a covariate-- still results in racially disparate predictions. We then demonstrate that the application of our proposed method to these data removes racial disparities from predictions with minimal impact on predictive accuracy.

Supporting Human-AI Collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs

Charvi Rastogi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Nicholas King +2

Large language models are becoming increasingly pervasive and ubiquitous in society via deployment in sociotechnical systems. Yet these language models, be it for classification or generation, have been shown to be biased and behave irresponsibly, causing harm to people at scale. It is crucial to audit these language models rigorously. Existing auditing tools leverage either or both humans and AI to find failures. In this work, we draw upon literature in human-AI collaboration and sensemaking, and conduct interviews with research experts in safe and fair AI, to build upon the auditing tool: AdaTest (Ribeiro and Lundberg, 2022), which is powered by a generative large language model (LLM). Through the design process we highlight the importance of sensemaking and human-AI communication to leverage complementary strengths of humans and generative models in collaborative auditing. To evaluate the effectiveness of the augmented tool, AdaTest++, we conduct user studies with participants auditing two commercial language models: OpenAI's GPT-3 and Azure's sentiment analysis model. Qualitative analysis shows that AdaTest++ effectively leverages human strengths such as schematization, hypothesis formation and testing. Further, with our tool, participants identified a variety of failures modes, covering 26 different topics over 2 tasks, that have been shown before in formal audits and also those previously under-reported.

Despite the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI), designing user experiences (UX) for AI-powered systems remains challenging. UX designers face hurdles understanding AI technologies, such as pre-trained language models, as design materials. This limits their ability to ideate and make decisions about whether, where, and how to use AI. To address this problem, we bridge the literature on AI design and AI transparency to explore whether and how frameworks for transparent model reporting can support design ideation with pre-trained models. By interviewing 23 UX practitioners, we find that practitioners frequently work with pre-trained models, but lack support for UX-led ideation. Through a scenario-based design task, we identify common goals that designers seek model understanding for and pinpoint their model transparency information needs. Our study highlights the pivotal role that UX designers can play in Responsible AI and calls for supporting their understanding of AI limitations through model transparency and interrogation.

How can humans remain in control of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems designed to perform tasks autonomously? Such systems are increasingly ubiquitous, creating benefits - but also undesirable situations where moral responsibility for their actions cannot be properly attributed to any particular person or group. The concept of meaningful human control has been proposed to address responsibility gaps and mitigate them by establishing conditions that enable a proper attribution of responsibility for humans; however, clear requirements for researchers, designers, and engineers are yet inexistent, making the development of AI-based systems that remain under meaningful human control challenging. In this paper, we address the gap between philosophical theory and engineering practice by identifying, through an iterative process of abductive thinking, four actionable properties for AI-based systems under meaningful human control, which we discuss making use of two applications scenarios: automated vehicles and AI-based hiring. First, a system in which humans and AI algorithms interact should have an explicitly defined domain of morally loaded situations within which the system ought to operate. Second, humans and AI agents within the system should have appropriate and mutually compatible representations. Third, responsibility attributed to a human should be commensurate with that human's ability and authority to control the system. Fourth, there should be explicit links between the actions of the AI agents and actions of humans who are aware of their moral responsibility. We argue that these four properties will support practically-minded professionals to take concrete steps toward designing and engineering for AI systems that facilitate meaningful human control.

AI virtues -- The missing link in putting AI ethics into practice

Thilo Hagendorff

Several seminal ethics initiatives have stipulated sets of principles and standards for good technology development in the AI sector. However, widespread criticism has pointed out a lack of practical realization of these principles. Following that, AI ethics underwent a practical turn, but without deviating from the principled approach and the many shortcomings associated with it. This paper proposes a different approach. It defines four basic AI virtues, namely justice, honesty, responsibility and care, all of which represent specific motivational settings that constitute the very precondition for ethical decision making in the AI field. Moreover, it defines two second-order AI virtues, prudence and fortitude, that bolster achieving the basic virtues by helping with overcoming bounded ethicality or the many hidden psychological forces that impair ethical decision making and that are hitherto disregarded in AI ethics. Lastly, the paper describes measures for successfully cultivating the mentioned virtues in organizations dealing with AI research and development.