Research Papers

This paper identifies the current challenges of the mechanisation, digitisation and automation of public sector systems and processes, and proposes a modern and practical framework to ensure and assure ethical and high veracity Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Automated Decision Making (ADM) systems in public institutions. This framework is designed for the specific context of the public sector, in the jurisdictional and constitutional context of Australia, but is extendable to other jurisdictions and private sectors. The goals of the framework are to: 1) earn public trust and grow public confidence in government systems; 2) to ensure the unique responsibilities and accountabilities (including to the public) of public institutions under Administrative Law are met effectively; and 3) to assure a positive human, societal and ethical impact from the adoption of such systems. The framework could be extended to assure positive environmental or other impacts, but this paper focuses on human/societal outcomes and public trust. This paper is meant to complement principles-based frameworks like Australia's Artificial Intelligence Ethics Framework and the EU Assessment List for Trustworthy AI. In many countries, COVID created a bubble of improved trust, a bubble which has arguably already popped, and in an era of unprecedented mistrust of public institutions (but even in times of high trust) it is not enough that a service is faster, or more cost-effective. This paper proposes recommendations for government systems (technology platforms, operations, culture, governance, engagement, etc.) that would help to improve public confidence and trust in public institutions, policies and services, whilst meeting the special obligations and responsibilities of the public sector.

Transcending XAI Algorithm Boundaries through End-User-Inspired Design

Weina Jin, Jianyu Fan, Diane Gromala +3

The boundaries of existing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) algorithms are confined to problems grounded in technical users' demand for explainability. This research paradigm disproportionately ignores the larger group of non-technical end users, who have a much higher demand for AI explanations in diverse explanation goals, such as making safer and better decisions and improving users' predicted outcomes. Lacking explainability-focused functional support for end users may hinder the safe and accountable use of AI in high-stakes domains, such as healthcare, criminal justice, finance, and autonomous driving systems. Built upon prior human factor analysis on end users' requirements for XAI, we identify and model four novel XAI technical problems covering the full spectrum from design to the evaluation of XAI algorithms, including edge-case-based reasoning, customizable counterfactual explanation, collapsible decision tree, and the verifiability metric to evaluate XAI utility. Based on these newly-identified research problems, we also discuss open problems in the technical development of user-centered XAI to inspire future research. Our work bridges human-centered XAI with the technical XAI community, and calls for a new research paradigm on the technical development of user-centered XAI for the responsible use of AI in critical tasks.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is increasingly used to analyze the behavior of neural networks. Concept activation uses human-interpretable concepts to explain neural network behavior. This study aimed at assessing the feasibility of regression concept activation to explain detection and classification of multi-modal volumetric data. Proof-of-concept was demonstrated in metastatic prostate cancer patients imaged with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Multi-modal volumetric concept activation was used to provide global and local explanations. Sensitivity was 80% at 1.78 false positive per patient. Global explanations showed that detection focused on CT for anatomical location and on PET for its confidence in the detection. Local explanations showed promise to aid in distinguishing true positives from false positives. Hence, this study demonstrated feasibility to explain detection and classification of multi-modal volumetric data using regression concept activation.

Recent advances in deep learning have enabled realistic digital alterations to videos, known as deepfakes. This technology raises important societal concerns regarding disinformation and authenticity, galvanizing the development of numerous deepfake detection algorithms. At the same time, there are significant differences between training data and in-the-wild video data, which may undermine their practical efficacy. We simulate data corruption techniques and examine the performance of a state-of-the-art deepfake detection algorithm on corrupted variants of the FaceForensics++ dataset. While deepfake detection models are robust against video corruptions that align with training-time augmentations, we find that they remain vulnerable to video corruptions that simulate decreases in video quality. Indeed, in the controversial case of the video of Gabonese President Bongo's new year address, the algorithm, which confidently authenticates the original video, judges highly corrupted variants of the video to be fake. Our work opens up both technical and ethical avenues of exploration into practical deepfake detection in global contexts.

In recent years, discussions about fairness in machine learning, AI ethics and algorithm audits have increased. Many entities have developed framework guidance to establish a baseline rubric for fairness and accountability. However, in spite of increased discussions and multiple frameworks, algorithm and data auditing still remain difficult to execute in practice. Many open-source auditing tools are available, but users aren't always aware of the tools, what they are useful for, or how to access them. Model auditing and evaluation are not frequently emphasized skills in machine learning. There are also legal reasons for the proactive adoption of these tools that extend beyond the desire for greater fairness in machine learning. There are positive social issues of public perception and goodwill that matter in our highly connected global society. Greater awareness of these tools and the reasons for actively utilizing them may be helpful to the entire continuum of programmers, data scientists, engineers, researchers, users and consumers of AI and machine learning products. It is important for everyone to better understand the input and output differentials, how they are occurring, and what can be done to promote FATE (fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics) in machine- and deep learning. The ability to freely access open-source auditing tools removes barriers to fairness assessment at the most basic levels of machine learning. This paper aims to reinforce the urgent need to actually use these tools and provides motivations for doing so. The exemplary tools highlighted herein are open-source with software or code-base repositories available that can be used immediately by anyone worldwide.

Prismal view of ethics

Sarah Isufi, Kristijan Poje, Igor Vukobratovic +1

We shall have a hard look at ethics and try to extract insights in the form of abstract properties that might become tools. We want to connect ethics to games, talk about the performance of ethics, introduce curiosity into the interplay between competing and coordinating in well-performing ethics, and offer a view of possible developments that could unify increasing aggregates of entities. All this is under a long shadow cast by computational complexity that is quite negative about games. This analysis is the first step toward finding modeling aspects that might be used in AI ethics for integrating modern AI systems into human society.

Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate Reinforcement

Antonio Rago, Pietro Baroni, Francesca Toni

Causal models are playing an increasingly important role in machine learning, particularly in the realm of explainable AI. We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models for the purpose of forging explanations for the models' outputs. The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds, which are means for characterising the relations in the causal model argumentatively. We demonstrate our methodology by reinterpreting the property of bi-variate reinforcement as an explanation mould to forge bipolar AFs as explanations for the outputs of causal models. We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.

Recent works have recognized the need for human-centered perspectives when designing and evaluating human-AI interactions and explainable AI methods. Yet, current approaches fall short at intercepting and managing unexpected user behavior resulting from the interaction with AI systems and explainability methods of different stake-holder groups. In this work, we explore the use of AI and explainability methods in the insurance domain. In an qualitative case study with participants with different roles and professional backgrounds, we show that AI and explainability methods are used in creative ways in daily workflows, resulting in a divergence between their intended and actual use. Finally, we discuss some recommendations for the design of human-AI interactions and explainable AI methods to manage the risks and harness the potential of unexpected user behavior.

"Public(s)-in-the-Loop": Facilitating Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions in Contentious Public Policy Domains

Hong Shen, Ángel Alexander Cabrera, Adam Perer +1

This position paper offers a framework to think about how to better involve human influence in algorithmic decision-making of contentious public policy issues. Drawing from insights in communication literature, we introduce a "public(s)-in-the-loop" approach and enumerates three features that are central to this approach: publics as plural political entities, collective decision-making through deliberation, and the construction of publics. It explores how these features might advance our understanding of stakeholder participation in AI design in contentious public policy domains such as recidivism prediction. Finally, it sketches out part of a research agenda for the HCI community to support this work.

Over the last years, many 'explainable artificial intelligence' (xAI) approaches have been developed, but these have not always been objectively evaluated. To evaluate the quality of heatmaps generated by various saliency methods, we developed a framework to generate artificial data with synthetic lesions and a known ground truth map. Using this framework, we evaluated two data sets with different backgrounds, Perlin noise and 2D brain MRI slices, and found that the heatmaps vary strongly between saliency methods and backgrounds. We strongly encourage further evaluation of saliency maps and xAI methods using this framework before applying these in clinical or other safety-critical settings.

In many applications, it is important to be able to explain the decisions of machine learning systems. An increasingly popular approach has been to seek to provide \emph{counterfactual instance explanations}. These specify close possible worlds in which, contrary to the facts, a person receives their desired decision from the machine learning system. This paper will draw on literature from the philosophy of science to argue that a satisfactory explanation must consist of both counterfactual instances and a causal equation (or system of equations) that support the counterfactual instances. We will show that counterfactual instances by themselves explain little. We will further illustrate how explainable AI methods that provide both causal equations and counterfactual instances can successfully explain machine learning predictions.

Despite the intense attention and considerable investment into clinical machine learning research, relatively few applications have been deployed at a large-scale in a real-world clinical environment. While research is important in advancing the state-of-the-art, translation is equally important in bringing these techniques and technologies into a position to ultimately impact healthcare. We believe a lack of appreciation for several considerations are a major cause for this discrepancy between expectation and reality. To better characterize a holistic perspective among researchers and practitioners, we survey several practitioners with commercial experience in developing CML for clinical deployment. Using these insights, we identify several main categories of challenges in order to better design and develop clinical machine learning applications.