Responsible AI research from arXiv, ranked by citations from
Semantic Scholar (
Allen AI ), and enriched with key takeaways
6,810 papers
Andrea Papenmeier, Gwenn Englebienne, Christin Seifert
Machine learning systems have become popular in fields such as marketing, financing, or data mining. While they are highly accurate, complex machine learning systems pose challenges for engineers and users. Their inherent complexity makes it impossible to easily judge their fairness and the correctness of statistically learned relations between variables and classes. Explainable AI aims to solve this challenge by modelling explanations alongside with the classifiers, potentially improving user trust and acceptance. However, users should not be fooled by persuasive, yet untruthful explanations. We therefore conduct a user study in which we investigate the effects of model accuracy and explanation fidelity, i.e. how truthfully the explanation represents the underlying model, on user trust. Our findings show that accuracy is more important for user trust than explainability. Adding an explanation for a classification result can potentially harm trust, e.g. when adding nonsensical explanations. We also found that users cannot be tricked by high-fidelity explanations into having trust for a bad classifier. Furthermore, we found a mismatch between observed (implicit) and self-reported (explicit) trust.
Andrei Margeloiu, Matthew Ashman, Umang Bhatt +3
Concept bottleneck models map from raw inputs to concepts, and then from concepts to targets. Such models aim to incorporate pre-specified, high-level concepts into the learning procedure, and have been motivated to meet three desiderata: interpretability, predictability, and intervenability. However, we find that concept bottleneck models struggle to meet these goals. Using post hoc interpretability methods, we demonstrate that concepts do not correspond to anything semantically meaningful in input space, thus calling into question the usefulness of concept bottleneck models in their current form.
Mohanad Sarhan, Siamak Layeghy, Marius Portmann
Machine Learning (ML)-based network intrusion detection systems bring many benefits for enhancing the cybersecurity posture of an organisation. Many systems have been designed and developed in the research community, often achieving a close to perfect detection rate when evaluated using synthetic datasets. However, the high number of academic research has not often translated into practical deployments. There are several causes contributing towards the wide gap between research and production, such as the limited ability of comprehensive evaluation of ML models and lack of understanding of internal ML operations. This paper tightens the gap by evaluating the generalisability of a common feature set to different network environments and attack scenarios. Therefore, two feature sets (NetFlow and CICFlowMeter) have been evaluated in terms of detection accuracy across three key datasets, i.e., CSE-CIC-IDS2018, BoT-IoT, and ToN-IoT. The results show the superiority of the NetFlow feature set in enhancing the ML models detection accuracy of various network attacks. In addition, due to the complexity of the learning models, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), an explainable AI methodology, has been adopted to explain and interpret the classification decisions of ML models. The Shapley values of two common feature sets have been analysed across multiple datasets to determine the influence contributed by each feature towards the final ML prediction.
Sheikh Rabiul Islam, William Eberle, Sheikh Khaled Ghafoor +1
The lack of explainability of a decision from an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based "black box" system/model, despite its superiority in many real-world applications, is a key stumbling block for adopting AI in many high stakes applications of different domain or industry. While many popular Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods or approaches are available to facilitate a human-friendly explanation of the decision, each has its own merits and demerits, with a plethora of open challenges. We demonstrate popular XAI methods with a mutual case study/task (i.e., credit default prediction), analyze for competitive advantages from multiple perspectives (e.g., local, global), provide meaningful insight on quantifying explainability, and recommend paths towards responsible or human-centered AI using XAI as a medium. Practitioners can use this work as a catalog to understand, compare, and correlate competitive advantages of popular XAI methods. In addition, this survey elicits future research directions towards responsible or human-centric AI systems, which is crucial to adopt AI in high stakes applications.
Zhengmian Hu, Lichang Chen, Xidong Wu +3
The recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked a growing apprehension regarding the potential misuse. One approach to mitigating this risk is to incorporate watermarking techniques into LLMs, allowing for the tracking and attribution of model outputs. This study examines a crucial aspect of watermarking: how significantly watermarks impact the quality of model-generated outputs. Previous studies have suggested a trade-off between watermark strength and output quality. However, our research demonstrates that it is possible to integrate watermarks without affecting the output probability distribution with appropriate implementation. We refer to this type of watermark as an unbiased watermark. This has significant implications for the use of LLMs, as it becomes impossible for users to discern whether a service provider has incorporated watermarks or not. Furthermore, the presence of watermarks does not compromise the performance of the model in downstream tasks, ensuring that the overall utility of the language model is preserved. Our findings contribute to the ongoing discussion around responsible AI development, suggesting that unbiased watermarks can serve as an effective means of tracking and attributing model outputs without sacrificing output quality.
Amirehsan Ghasemi, Soheil Hashtarkhani, David L Schwartz +1
With the advances in artificial intelligence (AI), data-driven algorithms are becoming increasingly popular in the medical domain. However, due to the nonlinear and complex behavior of many of these algorithms, decision-making by such algorithms is not trustworthy for clinicians and is considered a black-box process. Hence, the scientific community has introduced explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to remedy the problem. This systematic scoping review investigates the application of XAI in breast cancer detection and risk prediction. We conducted a comprehensive search on Scopus, IEEE Explore, PubMed, and Google Scholar (first 50 citations) using a systematic search strategy. The search spanned from January 2017 to July 2023, focusing on peer-reviewed studies implementing XAI methods in breast cancer datasets. Thirty studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The results revealed that SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) is the top model-agnostic XAI technique in breast cancer research in terms of usage, explaining the model prediction results, diagnosis and classification of biomarkers, and prognosis and survival analysis. Additionally, the SHAP model primarily explained tree-based ensemble machine learning models. The most common reason is that SHAP is model agnostic, which makes it both popular and useful for explaining any model prediction. Additionally, it is relatively easy to implement effectively and completely suits performant models, such as tree-based models. Explainable AI improves the transparency, interpretability, fairness, and trustworthiness of AI-enabled health systems and medical devices and, ultimately, the quality of care and outcomes.
Richmond Y. Wong, Michael A. Madaio, Nick Merrill
Numerous toolkits have been developed to support ethical AI development. However, toolkits, like all tools, encode assumptions in their design about what work should be done and how. In this paper, we conduct a qualitative analysis of 27 AI ethics toolkits to critically examine how the work of ethics is imagined and how it is supported by these toolkits. Specifically, we examine the discourses toolkits rely on when talking about ethical issues, who they imagine should do the work of ethics, and how they envision the work practices involved in addressing ethics. Among the toolkits, we identify a mismatch between the imagined work of ethics and the support the toolkits provide for doing that work. In particular, we identify a lack of guidance around how to navigate labor, organizational, and institutional power dynamics as they relate to performing ethical work. We use these omissions to chart future work for researchers and designers of AI ethics toolkits.
Philipp Hacker
As ChatGPT et al. conquer the world, the optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final cornerstone of EU AI regulation. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels Effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and beyond. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).
Branka Hadji Misheva, Joerg Osterrieder, Ali Hirsa +2
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created the single biggest technology revolution the world has ever seen. For the finance sector, it provides great opportunities to enhance customer experience, democratize financial services, ensure consumer protection and significantly improve risk management. While it is easier than ever to run state-of-the-art machine learning models, designing and implementing systems that support real-world finance applications have been challenging. In large part because they lack transparency and explainability which are important factors in establishing reliable technology and the research on this topic with a specific focus on applications in credit risk management. In this paper, we implement two advanced post-hoc model agnostic explainability techniques called Local Interpretable Model Agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to machine learning (ML)-based credit scoring models applied to the open-access data set offered by the US-based P2P Lending Platform, Lending Club. Specifically, we use LIME to explain instances locally and SHAP to get both local and global explanations. We discuss the results in detail and present multiple comparison scenarios by using various kernels available for explaining graphs generated using SHAP values. We also discuss the practical challenges associated with the implementation of these state-of-art eXplainabale AI (XAI) methods and document them for future reference. We have made an effort to document every technical aspect of this research, while at the same time providing a general summary of the conclusions.
Christoph Molnar, Timo Freiesleben, Gunnar König +3
Scientists and practitioners increasingly rely on machine learning to model data and draw conclusions. Compared to statistical modeling approaches, machine learning makes fewer explicit assumptions about data structures, such as linearity. However, their model parameters usually cannot be easily related to the data generating process. To learn about the modeled relationships, partial dependence (PD) plots and permutation feature importance (PFI) are often used as interpretation methods. However, PD and PFI lack a theory that relates them to the data generating process. We formalize PD and PFI as statistical estimators of ground truth estimands rooted in the data generating process. We show that PD and PFI estimates deviate from this ground truth due to statistical biases, model variance and Monte Carlo approximation errors. To account for model variance in PD and PFI estimation, we propose the learner-PD and the learner-PFI based on model refits, and propose corrected variance and confidence interval estimators.
Prashant Gohel, Priyanka Singh, Manoranjan Mohanty
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is an emerging area of research in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). XAI can explain how AI obtained a particular solution (e.g., classification or object detection) and can also answer other "wh" questions. This explainability is not possible in traditional AI. Explainability is essential for critical applications, such as defense, health care, law and order, and autonomous driving vehicles, etc, where the know-how is required for trust and transparency. A number of XAI techniques so far have been purposed for such applications. This paper provides an overview of these techniques from a multimedia (i.e., text, image, audio, and video) point of view. The advantages and shortcomings of these techniques have been discussed, and pointers to some future directions have also been provided.
Maede Zolanvari, Zebo Yang, Khaled Khan +2
Despite AI's significant growth, its "black box" nature creates challenges in generating adequate trust. Thus, it is seldom utilized as a standalone unit in IoT high-risk applications, such as critical industrial infrastructures, medical systems, and financial applications, etc. Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged to help with this problem. However, designing appropriately fast and accurate XAI is still challenging, especially in numerical applications. Here, we propose a universal XAI model named Transparency Relying Upon Statistical Theory (TRUST), which is model-agnostic, high-performing, and suitable for numerical applications. Simply put, TRUST XAI models the statistical behavior of the AI's outputs in an AI-based system. Factor analysis is used to transform the input features into a new set of latent variables. We use mutual information to rank these variables and pick only the most influential ones on the AI's outputs and call them "representatives" of the classes. Then we use multi-modal Gaussian distributions to determine the likelihood of any new sample belonging to each class. We demonstrate the effectiveness of TRUST in a case study on cybersecurity of the industrial Internet of things (IIoT) using three different cybersecurity datasets. As IIoT is a prominent application that deals with numerical data. The results show that TRUST XAI provides explanations for new random samples with an average success rate of 98%. Compared with LIME, a popular XAI model, TRUST is shown to be superior in the context of performance, speed, and the method of explainability. In the end, we also show how TRUST is explained to the user.
74% published 2023+
26
Avg
309
100+
18
1K+
6,810
Total
Excl. arXiv-only (2,998)