Research Papers

This workshop Report Out focuses on the foundational elements of trustworthy AI and OR technology, and how to ensure all AI and OR systems implement these elements in their system designs. Four sessions on various topics within Trustworthy AI were held, these being Fairness, Explainable AI/Causality, Robustness/Privacy, and Human Alignment and Human-Computer Interaction. Following discussions of each of these topics, workshop participants also brainstormed challenge problems which require the collaboration of AI and OR researchers and will result in the integration of basic techniques from both fields to eventually benefit societal needs.

Several explainable AI methods allow a Machine Learning user to get insights on the classification process of a black-box model in the form of local linear explanations. With such information, the user can judge which features are locally relevant for the classification outcome, and get an understanding of how the model reasons. Standard supervised learning processes are purely driven by the original features and target labels, without any feedback loop informed by the local relevance of the features identified by the post-hoc explanations. In this paper, we exploit this newly obtained information to design a feature engineering phase, where we combine explanations with feature values. To do so, we develop two different strategies, named Iterative Dataset Weighting and Targeted Replacement Values, which generate streamlined models that better mimic the explanation process presented to the user. We show how these streamlined models compare to the original black-box classifiers, in terms of accuracy and compactness of the newly produced explanations.

Two fundamental requirements for the deployment of machine learning models in safety-critical systems are to be able to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) data correctly and to be able to explain the prediction of the model. Although significant effort has gone into both OOD detection and explainable AI, there has been little work on explaining why a model predicts a certain data point is OOD. In this paper, we address this question by introducing the concept of an OOD counterfactual, which is a perturbed data point that iteratively moves between different OOD categories. We propose a method for generating such counterfactuals, investigate its application on synthetic and benchmark data, and compare it to several benchmark methods using a range of metrics.

This paper proposes an alternative approach to the basic taxonomy of explanations produced by explainable artificial intelligence techniques. Methods of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) were developed to answer the question why a certain prediction or estimation was made, preferably in terms easy to understand by the human agent. XAI taxonomies proposed in the literature mainly concentrate their attention on distinguishing explanations with respect to involving the human agent, which makes it complicated to provide a more mathematical approach to distinguish and compare different explanations. This paper narrows its attention to the cases where the data set of interest belongs to $\mathbb{R} ^n$ and proposes a simple linear algebra-based taxonomy for local explanations.

The scalability of modern computing hardware is limited by physical bottlenecks and high energy consumption. These limitations could be addressed by neuromorphic hardware (NMH) which is inspired by the human brain. NMH enables physically built-in capabilities of information processing at the hardware level. In other words, brain-like features bias hardware towards intelligence at scale. Neuropmorphic computing paradigms require a novel approach to safe, interpretable AI. In order to effectively engage the risk of misaligned AI, safety research may need to expand its scope to include NMH. This may be best achieved by supporting those currently engaged in NMH capability research to work on safety and related areas.

ComplAI: Theory of A Unified Framework for Multi-factor Assessment of Black-Box Supervised Machine Learning Models

Arkadipta De, Satya Swaroop Gudipudi, Sourab Panchanan +1

The advances in Artificial Intelligence are creating new opportunities to improve lives of people around the world, from business to healthcare, from lifestyle to education. For example, some systems profile the users using their demographic and behavioral characteristics to make certain domain-specific predictions. Often, such predictions impact the life of the user directly or indirectly (e.g., loan disbursement, determining insurance coverage, shortlisting applications, etc.). As a result, the concerns over such AI-enabled systems are also increasing. To address these concerns, such systems are mandated to be responsible i.e., transparent, fair, and explainable to developers and end-users. In this paper, we present ComplAI, a unique framework to enable, observe, analyze and quantify explainability, robustness, performance, fairness, and model behavior in drift scenarios, and to provide a single Trust Factor that evaluates different supervised Machine Learning models not just from their ability to make correct predictions but from overall responsibility perspective. The framework helps users to (a) connect their models and enable explanations, (b) assess and visualize different aspects of the model, such as robustness, drift susceptibility, and fairness, and (c) compare different models (from different model families or obtained through different hyperparameter settings) from an overall perspective thereby facilitating actionable recourse for improvement of the models. It is model agnostic and works with different supervised machine learning scenarios (i.e., Binary Classification, Multi-class Classification, and Regression) and frameworks. It can be seamlessly integrated with any ML life-cycle framework. Thus, this already deployed framework aims to unify critical aspects of Responsible AI systems for regulating the development process of such real systems.

According to the latest trend of artificial intelligence, AI-systems needs to clarify regarding general,specific decisions,services provided by it. Only consumer is satisfied, with explanation , for example, why any classification result is the outcome of any given time. This actually motivates us using explainable or human understandable AI for a behavioral mining scenario, where users engagement on digital platform is determined from context, such as emotion, activity, weather, etc. However, the output of AI-system is not always systematically correct, and often systematically correct, but apparently not-perfect and thereby creating confusions, such as, why the decision is given? What is the reason underneath? In this context, we first formulate the behavioral mining problem in deep convolutional neural network architecture. Eventually, we apply a recursive neural network due to the presence of time-series data from users physiological and environmental sensor-readings. Once the model is developed, explanations are presented with the advent of XAI models in front of users. This critical step involves extensive trial with users preference on explanations over conventional AI, judgement of credibility of explanation.

In modern business processes, the amount of data collected has increased substantially in recent years. Because this data can potentially yield valuable insights, automated knowledge extraction based on process mining has been proposed, among other techniques, to provide users with intuitive access to the information contained therein. At present, the majority of technologies aim to reconstruct explicit business process models. These are directly interpretable but limited concerning the integration of diverse and real-valued information sources. On the other hand, Machine Learning (ML) benefits from the vast amount of data available and can deal with high-dimensional sources, yet it has rarely been applied to being used in processes. In this contribution, we evaluate the capability of modern Transformer architectures as well as more classical ML technologies of modeling process regularities, as can be quantitatively evaluated by their prediction capability. In addition, we demonstrate the capability of attentional properties and feature relevance determination by highlighting features that are crucial to the processes' predictive abilities. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach using five benchmark datasets and show that the ML models are capable of predicting critical outcomes and that the attention mechanisms or XAI components offer new insights into the underlying processes.

Many visualization techniques have been created to explain the behavior of computer vision models, but they largely consist of static diagrams that convey limited information. Interactive visualizations allow users to more easily interpret a model's behavior, but most are not easily reusable for new models. We introduce Visual Feature Search, a novel interactive visualization that is adaptable to any CNN and can easily be incorporated into a researcher's workflow. Our tool allows a user to highlight an image region and search for images from a given dataset with the most similar model features. We demonstrate how our tool elucidates different aspects of model behavior by performing experiments on a range of applications, such as in medical imaging and wildlife classification.

Explaining the behaviors of deep neural networks, usually considered as black boxes, is critical especially when they are now being adopted over diverse aspects of human life. Taking the advantages of interpretable machine learning (interpretable ML), this work proposes a novel tool called Catastrophic Forgetting Dissector (or CFD) to explain catastrophic forgetting in continual learning settings. We also introduce a new method called Critical Freezing based on the observations of our tool. Experiments on ResNet articulate how catastrophic forgetting happens, particularly showing which components of this famous network are forgetting. Our new continual learning algorithm defeats various recent techniques by a significant margin, proving the capability of the investigation. Critical freezing not only attacks catastrophic forgetting but also exposes explainability.

Strategies based on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) have promoted better human interpretability of the results of black box models. This opens up the possibility of questioning whether explanations created by XAI methods meet human expectations. The XAI methods being currently used (Ciu, Dalex, Eli5, Lofo, Shap, and Skater) provide various forms of explanations, including global rankings of relevance of features, which allow for an overview of how the model is explained as a result of its inputs and outputs. These methods provide for an increase in the explainability of the model and a greater interpretability grounded on the context of the problem. Intending to shed light on the explanations generated by XAI methods and their interpretations, this research addresses a real-world classification problem related to homicide prediction, already peer-validated, replicated its proposed black box model and used 6 different XAI methods to generate explanations and 6 different human experts. The results were generated through calculations of correlations, comparative analysis and identification of relationships between all ranks of features produced. It was found that even though it is a model that is difficult to explain, 75\% of the expectations of human experts were met, with approximately 48\% agreement between results from XAI methods and human experts. The results allow for answering questions such as: "Are the Expectation of Interpretation generated among different human experts similar?", "Do the different XAI methods generate similar explanations for the proposed problem?", "Can explanations generated by XAI methods meet human expectation of Interpretations?", and "Can Explanations and Expectations of Interpretation work together?".

Methods of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) are used in geoscientific applications to gain insights into the decision-making strategy of Neural Networks (NNs) highlighting which features in the input contribute the most to a NN prediction. Here, we discuss our lesson learned that the task of attributing a prediction to the input does not have a single solution. Instead, the attribution results and their interpretation depend greatly on the considered baseline (sometimes referred to as reference point) that the XAI method utilizes; a fact that has been overlooked so far in the literature. This baseline can be chosen by the user or it is set by construction in the method s algorithm, often without the user being aware of that choice. We highlight that different baselines can lead to different insights for different science questions and, thus, should be chosen accordingly. To illustrate the impact of the baseline, we use a large ensemble of historical and future climate simulations forced with the SSP3-7.0 scenario and train a fully connected NN to predict the ensemble- and global-mean temperature (i.e., the forced global warming signal) given an annual temperature map from an individual ensemble member. We then use various XAI methods and different baselines to attribute the network predictions to the input. We show that attributions differ substantially when considering different baselines, as they correspond to answering different science questions. We conclude by discussing some important implications and considerations about the use of baselines in XAI research.