Research Papers

Developing applicable clinical machine learning models is a difficult task when the data includes spatial information, for example, radiation dose distributions across adjacent organs at risk. We describe the co-design of a modeling system, DASS, to support the hybrid human-machine development and validation of predictive models for estimating long-term toxicities related to radiotherapy doses in head and neck cancer patients. Developed in collaboration with domain experts in oncology and data mining, DASS incorporates human-in-the-loop visual steering, spatial data, and explainable AI to augment domain knowledge with automatic data mining. We demonstrate DASS with the development of two practical clinical stratification models and report feedback from domain experts. Finally, we describe the design lessons learned from this collaborative experience.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is motivated by the problem of making AI predictions understandable, transparent, and responsible, as AI becomes increasingly impactful in society and high-stakes domains. The evaluation and optimization criteria of XAI are gatekeepers for XAI algorithms to achieve their expected goals and should withstand rigorous inspection. To improve the scientific rigor of XAI, we conduct a critical examination of a common XAI criterion: plausibility. Plausibility assesses how convincing the AI explanation is to humans, and is usually quantified by metrics of feature localization or feature correlation. Our examination shows that plausibility is invalid to measure explainability, and human explanations are not the ground truth for XAI, because doing so ignores the necessary assumptions underpinning an explanation. Our examination further reveals the consequences of using plausibility as an XAI criterion, including increasing misleading explanations that manipulate users, deteriorating users' trust in the AI system, undermining human autonomy, being unable to achieve complementary human-AI task performance, and abandoning other possible approaches of enhancing understandability. Due to the invalidity of measurements and the unethical issues, this position paper argues that the community should stop using plausibility as a criterion for the evaluation and optimization of XAI algorithms. We also delineate new research approaches to improve XAI in trustworthiness, understandability, and utility to users, including complementary human-AI task performance.

Risky and crowded environments (RCE) contain abstract sources of risk and uncertainty, which are perceived differently by humans, leading to a variety of behaviors. Thus, robots deployed in RCEs, need to exhibit diverse perception and planning capabilities in order to interpret other human agents' behavior and act accordingly in such environments. To understand this problem domain, we conducted a study to explore human path choices in RCEs, enabling better robotic navigational explainable AI (XAI) designs. We created a novel COVID-19 pandemic grocery shopping scenario which had time-risk tradeoffs, and acquired users' path preferences. We found that participants showcase a variety of path preferences: from risky and urgent to safe and relaxed. To model users' decision making, we evaluated three popular risk models (Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), Conditional Value at Risk (CVAR), and Expected Risk (ER). We found that CPT captured people's decision making more accurately than CVaR and ER, corroborating theoretical results that CPT is more expressive and inclusive than CVaR and ER. We also found that people's self assessments of risk and time-urgency do not correlate with their path preferences in RCEs. Finally, we conducted thematic analysis of open-ended questions, providing crucial design insights for robots is RCE. Thus, through this study, we provide novel and critical insights about human behavior and perception to help design better navigational explainable AI (XAI) in RCEs.

Recent advances in Explainable AI (XAI) increased the demand for deployment of safe and interpretable AI models in various industry sectors. Despite the latest success of deep neural networks in a variety of domains, understanding the decision-making process of such complex models still remains a challenging task for domain experts. Especially in the financial domain, merely pointing to an anomaly composed of often hundreds of mixed type columns, has limited value for experts. Hence, in this paper, we propose a framework for explaining anomalies using denoising autoencoders designed for mixed type tabular data. We specifically focus our technique on anomalies that are erroneous observations. This is achieved by localizing individual sample columns (cells) with potential errors and assigning corresponding confidence scores. In addition, the model provides the expected cell value estimates to fix the errors. We evaluate our approach based on three standard public tabular datasets (Credit Default, Adult, IEEE Fraud) and one proprietary dataset (Holdings). We find that denoising autoencoders applied to this task already outperform other approaches in the cell error detection rates as well as in the expected value rates. Additionally, we analyze how a specialized loss designed for cell error detection can further improve these metrics. Our framework is designed for a domain expert to understand abnormal characteristics of an anomaly, as well as to improve in-house data quality management processes.

INTERACTION: A Generative XAI Framework for Natural Language Inference Explanations

Jialin Yu, Alexandra I. Cristea, Anoushka Harit +4

XAI with natural language processing aims to produce human-readable explanations as evidence for AI decision-making, which addresses explainability and transparency. However, from an HCI perspective, the current approaches only focus on delivering a single explanation, which fails to account for the diversity of human thoughts and experiences in language. This paper thus addresses this gap, by proposing a generative XAI framework, INTERACTION (explaIn aNd predicT thEn queRy with contextuAl CondiTional varIational autO-eNcoder). Our novel framework presents explanation in two steps: (step one) Explanation and Label Prediction; and (step two) Diverse Evidence Generation. We conduct intensive experiments with the Transformer architecture on a benchmark dataset, e-SNLI. Our method achieves competitive or better performance against state-of-the-art baseline models on explanation generation (up to 4.7% gain in BLEU) and prediction (up to 4.4% gain in accuracy) in step one; it can also generate multiple diverse explanations in step two.

TRUST-LAPSE: An Explainable and Actionable Mistrust Scoring Framework for Model Monitoring

Nandita Bhaskhar, Daniel L. Rubin, Christopher Lee-Messer

Continuous monitoring of trained ML models to determine when their predictions should and should not be trusted is essential for their safe deployment. Such a framework ought to be high-performing, explainable, post-hoc and actionable. We propose TRUST-LAPSE, a "mistrust" scoring framework for continuous model monitoring. We assess the trustworthiness of each input sample's model prediction using a sequence of latent-space embeddings. Specifically, (a) our latent-space mistrust score estimates mistrust using distance metrics (Mahalanobis distance) and similarity metrics (cosine similarity) in the latent-space and (b) our sequential mistrust score determines deviations in correlations over the sequence of past input representations in a non-parametric, sliding-window based algorithm for actionable continuous monitoring. We evaluate TRUST-LAPSE via two downstream tasks: (1) distributionally shifted input detection, and (2) data drift detection. We evaluate across diverse domains - audio and vision using public datasets and further benchmark our approach on challenging, real-world electroencephalograms (EEG) datasets for seizure detection. Our latent-space mistrust scores achieve state-of-the-art results with AUROCs of 84.1 (vision), 73.9 (audio), and 77.1 (clinical EEGs), outperforming baselines by over 10 points. We expose critical failures in popular baselines that remain insensitive to input semantic content, rendering them unfit for real-world model monitoring. We show that our sequential mistrust scores achieve high drift detection rates; over 90% of the streams show < 20% error for all domains. Through extensive qualitative and quantitative evaluations, we show that our mistrust scores are more robust and provide explainability for easy adoption into practice.

Artificial intelligence has become pervasive across disciplines and fields, and biomedical image and signal processing is no exception. The growing and widespread interest on the topic has triggered a vast research activity that is reflected in an exponential research effort. Through study of massive and diverse biomedical data, machine and deep learning models have revolutionized various tasks such as modeling, segmentation, registration, classification and synthesis, outperforming traditional techniques. However, the difficulty in translating the results into biologically/clinically interpretable information is preventing their full exploitation in the field. Explainable AI (XAI) attempts to fill this translational gap by providing means to make the models interpretable and providing explanations. Different solutions have been proposed so far and are gaining increasing interest from the community. This paper aims at providing an overview on XAI in biomedical data processing and points to an upcoming Special Issue on Deep Learning in Biomedical Image and Signal Processing of the IEEE Signal Processing Magazine that is going to appear in March 2022.

Recent research has supported that system explainability improves user trust and willingness to use medical AI for diagnostic support. In this paper, we use chest disease diagnosis based on X-Ray images as a case study to investigate user trust and reliance. Building off explainability, we propose a support system where users (radiologists) can view causal explanations for final decisions. After observing these causal explanations, users provided their opinions of the model predictions and could correct explanations if they did not agree. We measured user trust as the agreement between the model's and the radiologist's diagnosis as well as the radiologists' feedback on the model explanations. Additionally, they reported their trust in the system. We tested our model on the CXR-Eye dataset and it achieved an overall accuracy of 74.1%. However, the experts in our user study agreed with the model for only 46.4% of the cases, indicating the necessity of improving the trust. The self-reported trust score was 3.2 on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0, showing that the users tended to trust the model but the trust still needs to be enhanced.

Since the seminal paper by Breiman in 2001, who pointed out a potential harm of prediction multiplicities from the view of explainable AI, global analysis of a collection of all good models, also known as a `Rashomon set,' has been attracted much attention for the last years. Since finding such a set of good models is a hard computational problem, there have been only a few algorithms for the problem so far, most of which are either approximate or incomplete. To overcome this difficulty, we study efficient enumeration of all good models for a subclass of interpretable models, called rule lists. Based on a state-of-the-art optimal rule list learner, CORELS, proposed by Angelino et al. in 2017, we present an efficient enumeration algorithm CorelsEnum for exactly computing a set of all good models using polynomial space in input size, given a dataset and a error tolerance from an optimal model. By experiments with the COMPAS dataset on recidivism prediction, our algorithm CorelsEnum successfully enumerated all of several tens of thousands of good rule lists of length at most $\ell = 3$ in around 1,000 seconds, while a state-of-the-art top-$K$ rule list learner based on Lawler's method combined with CORELS, proposed by Hara and Ishihata in 2018, found only 40 models until the timeout of 6,000 seconds. For global analysis, we conducted experiments for characterizing the Rashomon set, and observed large diversity of models in predictive multiplicity and fairness of models.

Scientists frequently prioritize learning from data rather than training the best possible model; however, research in machine learning often prioritizes the latter. Marginal contribution feature importance (MCI) was developed to break this trend by providing a useful framework for quantifying the relationships in data. In this work, we aim to improve upon the theoretical properties, performance, and runtime of MCI by introducing ultra-marginal feature importance (UMFI), which uses dependence removal techniques from the AI fairness literature as its foundation. We first propose axioms for feature importance methods that seek to explain the causal and associative relationships in data, and we prove that UMFI satisfies these axioms under basic assumptions. We then show on real and simulated data that UMFI performs better than MCI, especially in the presence of correlated interactions and unrelated features, while partially learning the structure of the causal graph and reducing the exponential runtime of MCI to super-linear.

Contextual Importance and Utility: aTheoretical Foundation

Kary Främling

This paper provides new theory to support to the eXplainable AI (XAI) method Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU). CIU arithmetic is based on the concepts of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory, which gives CIU a solid theoretical foundation. The novel concept of contextual influence is also defined, which makes it possible to compare CIU directly with so-called additive feature attribution (AFA) methods for model-agnostic outcome explanation. One key takeaway is that the "influence" concept used by AFA methods is inadequate for outcome explanation purposes even for simple models to explain. Experiments with simple models show that explanations using contextual importance (CI) and contextual utility (CU) produce explanations where influence-based methods fail. It is also shown that CI and CU guarantees explanation faithfulness towards the explained model.

Contemporary concerns over the governance of technological systems often run up against narratives about the technical infeasibility of designing mechanisms for accountability. While in recent AI ethics literature these concerns have been deliberated predominantly in relation to ML, other instances in computing history also presented circumstances in which computer scientists needed to un-muddle what it means to design accountable systems. One such compelling narrative can be found in canonical histories of the Internet that highlight how its original designers' commitment to the "End-to-End" architectural principle precluded other features from being implemented, resulting in the fast-growing, generative, but ultimately unaccountable network we have today. This paper offers a critique of such technologically essentialist notions of accountability and the characterization of the "unaccountable Internet" as an unintended consequence. It explores the changing meaning of accounting and its relationship to accountability in a selected corpus of requests for comments (RFCs) concerning the early Internet's design from the 1970s and 80s. We characterize four ways of conceptualizing accounting: as billing, as measurement, as management, and as policy, and demonstrate how an understanding of accountability was constituted through these shifting meanings. We link together the administrative and technical mechanisms of accounting for shared resources in a distributed system and an emerging notion of accountability as a social, political, and technical category, arguing that the former is constitutive of the latter. Recovering this history is not only important for understanding the processes that shaped the Internet, but also serves as a starting point for unpacking the complicated political choices that are involved in designing accountability mechanisms for other technological systems today.