Research Papers

Smart home environments are designed to provide services that help improve the quality of life for the occupant via a variety of sensors and actuators installed throughout the space. Many automated actions taken by a smart home are governed by the output of an underlying activity recognition system. However, activity recognition systems may not be perfectly accurate and therefore inconsistencies in smart home operations can lead users reliant on smart home predictions to wonder "why did the smart home do that?" In this work, we build on insights from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques and introduce an explainable activity recognition framework in which we leverage leading XAI methods to generate natural language explanations that explain what about an activity led to the given classification. Within the context of remote caregiver monitoring, we perform a two-step evaluation: (a) utilize ML experts to assess the sensibility of explanations, and (b) recruit non-experts in two user remote caregiver monitoring scenarios, synchronous and asynchronous, to assess the effectiveness of explanations generated via our framework. Our results show that the XAI approach, SHAP, has a 92% success rate in generating sensible explanations. Moreover, in 83% of sampled scenarios users preferred natural language explanations over a simple activity label, underscoring the need for explainable activity recognition systems. Finally, we show that explanations generated by some XAI methods can lead users to lose confidence in the accuracy of the underlying activity recognition model. We make a recommendation regarding which existing XAI method leads to the best performance in the domain of smart home automation, and discuss a range of topics for future work to further improve explainable activity recognition.

This paper examines the systemic risks posed by incremental advancements in artificial intelligence, developing the concept of `gradual disempowerment', in contrast to the abrupt takeover scenarios commonly discussed in AI safety. We analyze how even incremental improvements in AI capabilities can undermine human influence over large-scale systems that society depends on, including the economy, culture, and nation-states. As AI increasingly replaces human labor and cognition in these domains, it can weaken both explicit human control mechanisms (like voting and consumer choice) and the implicit alignments with human interests that often arise from societal systems' reliance on human participation to function. Furthermore, to the extent that these systems incentivise outcomes that do not line up with human preferences, AIs may optimize for those outcomes more aggressively. These effects may be mutually reinforcing across different domains: economic power shapes cultural narratives and political decisions, while cultural shifts alter economic and political behavior. We argue that this dynamic could lead to an effectively irreversible loss of human influence over crucial societal systems, precipitating an existential catastrophe through the permanent disempowerment of humanity. This suggests the need for both technical research and governance approaches that specifically address the risk of incremental erosion of human influence across interconnected societal systems.

The field of drug discovery has experienced a remarkable transformation with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. However, as these AI and ML models are becoming more complex, there is a growing need for transparency and interpretability of the models. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a novel approach that addresses this issue and provides a more interpretable understanding of the predictions made by machine learning models. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the application of XAI techniques to drug discovery. This review article provides a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art in XAI for drug discovery, including various XAI methods, their application in drug discovery, and the challenges and limitations of XAI techniques in drug discovery. The article also covers the application of XAI in drug discovery, including target identification, compound design, and toxicity prediction. Furthermore, the article suggests potential future research directions for the application of XAI in drug discovery. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of XAI in drug discovery and its potential to transform the field.

Ethics in the Age of AI: An Analysis of AI Practitioners' Awareness and Challenges

Aastha Pant, Rashina Hoda, Simone V. Spiegler +2

Ethics in AI has become a debated topic of public and expert discourse in recent years. But what do people who build AI - AI practitioners - have to say about their understanding of AI ethics and the challenges associated with incorporating it in the AI-based systems they develop? Understanding AI practitioners' views on AI ethics is important as they are the ones closest to the AI systems and can bring about changes and improvements. We conducted a survey aimed at understanding AI practitioners' awareness of AI ethics and their challenges in incorporating ethics. Based on 100 AI practitioners' responses, our findings indicate that majority of AI practitioners had a reasonable familiarity with the concept of AI ethics, primarily due to workplace rules and policies. Privacy protection and security was the ethical principle that majority of them were aware of. Formal education/training was considered somewhat helpful in preparing practitioners to incorporate AI ethics. The challenges that AI practitioners faced in the development of ethical AI-based systems included (i) general challenges, (ii) technology-related challenges and (iii) human-related challenges. We also identified areas needing further investigation and provided recommendations to assist AI practitioners and companies in incorporating ethics into AI development.

Investigating Practices and Opportunities for Cross-functional Collaboration around AI Fairness in Industry Practice

Wesley Hanwen Deng, Nur Yildirim, Monica Chang +3

An emerging body of research indicates that ineffective cross-functional collaboration -- the interdisciplinary work done by industry practitioners across roles -- represents a major barrier to addressing issues of fairness in AI design and development. In this research, we sought to better understand practitioners' current practices and tactics to enact cross-functional collaboration for AI fairness, in order to identify opportunities to support more effective collaboration. We conducted a series of interviews and design workshops with 23 industry practitioners spanning various roles from 17 companies. We found that practitioners engaged in bridging work to overcome frictions in understanding, contextualization, and evaluation around AI fairness across roles. In addition, in organizational contexts with a lack of resources and incentives for fairness work, practitioners often piggybacked on existing requirements (e.g., for privacy assessments) and AI development norms (e.g., the use of quantitative evaluation metrics), although they worry that these tactics may be fundamentally compromised. Finally, we draw attention to the invisible labor that practitioners take on as part of this bridging and piggybacking work to enact interdisciplinary collaboration for fairness. We close by discussing opportunities for both FAccT researchers and AI practitioners to better support cross-functional collaboration for fairness in the design and development of AI systems.

Predominately in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) research, the Shapley value (SV) is applied to determine feature attributions for any black box model. Shapley interaction indices extend the SV to define any-order feature interactions. Defining a unique Shapley interaction index is an open research question and, so far, three definitions have been proposed, which differ by their choice of axioms. Moreover, each definition requires a specific approximation technique. Here, we propose SHAPley Interaction Quantification (SHAP-IQ), an efficient sampling-based approximator to compute Shapley interactions for arbitrary cardinal interaction indices (CII), i.e. interaction indices that satisfy the linearity, symmetry and dummy axiom. SHAP-IQ is based on a novel representation and, in contrast to existing methods, we provide theoretical guarantees for its approximation quality, as well as estimates for the variance of the point estimates. For the special case of SV, our approach reveals a novel representation of the SV and corresponds to Unbiased KernelSHAP with a greatly simplified calculation. We illustrate the computational efficiency and effectiveness by explaining language, image classification and high-dimensional synthetic models.

Self-Destructing Models: Increasing the Costs of Harmful Dual Uses of Foundation Models

Peter Henderson, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning +2

A growing ecosystem of large, open-source foundation models has reduced the labeled data and technical expertise necessary to apply machine learning to many new problems. Yet foundation models pose a clear dual-use risk, indiscriminately reducing the costs of building both harmful and beneficial machine learning systems. Policy tools such as restricted model access and export controls are the primary methods currently used to mitigate such dual-use risks. In this work, we review potential safe-release strategies and argue that both policymakers and AI researchers would benefit from fundamentally new technologies enabling more precise control over the downstream usage of open-source foundation models. We propose one such approach: the task blocking paradigm, in which foundation models are trained with an additional mechanism to impede adaptation to harmful tasks without sacrificing performance on desirable tasks. We call the resulting models self-destructing models, inspired by mechanisms that prevent adversaries from using tools for harmful purposes. We present an algorithm for training self-destructing models leveraging techniques from meta-learning and adversarial learning, which we call meta-learned adversarial censoring (MLAC). In a small-scale experiment, we show MLAC can largely prevent a BERT-style model from being re-purposed to perform gender identification without harming the model's ability to perform profession classification.

Work integrating conversations around AI and Disability is vital and valued, particularly when done through a lens of fairness. Yet at the same time, analyzing the ethical implications of AI for disabled people solely through the lens of a singular idea of "fairness" risks reinforcing existing power dynamics, either through reinforcing the position of existing medical gatekeepers, or promoting tools and techniques that benefit otherwise-privileged disabled people while harming those who are rendered outliers in multiple ways. In this paper we present two case studies from within computer vision - a subdiscipline of AI focused on training algorithms that can "see" - of technologies putatively intended to help disabled people but, through failures to consider structural injustices in their design, are likely to result in harms not addressed by a "fairness" framing of ethics. Drawing on disability studies and critical data science, we call on researchers into AI ethics and disability to move beyond simplistic notions of fairness, and towards notions of justice.

Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

Bertie Vidgen, Adarsh Agrawal, Ahmed M. Ahmed +97

This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.

Artificial intelligence to advance Earth observation: : A review of models, recent trends, and pathways forward

Devis Tuia, Konrad Schindler, Begüm Demir +11

Earth observation (EO) is a prime instrument for monitoring land and ocean processes, studying the dynamics at work, and taking the pulse of our planet. This article gives a bird's eye view of the essential scientific tools and approaches informing and supporting the transition from raw EO data to usable EO-based information. The promises, as well as the current challenges of these developments, are highlighted under dedicated sections. Specifically, we cover the impact of (i) Computer vision; (ii) Machine learning; (iii) Advanced processing and computing; (iv) Knowledge-based AI; (v) Explainable AI and causal inference; (vi) Physics-aware models; (vii) User-centric approaches; and (viii) the much-needed discussion of ethical and societal issues related to the massive use of ML technologies in EO.

While a vast collection of explainable AI (XAI) algorithms have been developed in recent years, they are often criticized for significant gaps with how humans produce and consume explanations. As a result, current XAI techniques are often found to be hard to use and lack effectiveness. In this work, we attempt to close these gaps by making AI explanations selective -- a fundamental property of human explanations -- by selectively presenting a subset from a large set of model reasons based on what aligns with the recipient's preferences. We propose a general framework for generating selective explanations by leveraging human input on a small sample. This framework opens up a rich design space that accounts for different selectivity goals, types of input, and more. As a showcase, we use a decision-support task to explore selective explanations based on what the decision-maker would consider relevant to the decision task. We conducted two experimental studies to examine three out of a broader possible set of paradigms based on our proposed framework: in Study 1, we ask the participants to provide their own input to generate selective explanations, with either open-ended or critique-based input. In Study 2, we show participants selective explanations based on input from a panel of similar users (annotators). Our experiments demonstrate the promise of selective explanations in reducing over-reliance on AI and improving decision outcomes and subjective perceptions of the AI, but also paint a nuanced picture that attributes some of these positive effects to the opportunity to provide one's own input to augment AI explanations. Overall, our work proposes a novel XAI framework inspired by human communication behaviors and demonstrates its potentials to encourage future work to better align AI explanations with human production and consumption of explanations.

Deep neural networks that yield human interpretable decisions by architectural design have lately become an increasingly popular alternative to post hoc interpretation of traditional black-box models. Among these networks, the arguably most widespread approach is so-called prototype learning, where similarities to learned latent prototypes serve as the basis of classifying an unseen data point. In this work, we point to an important shortcoming of such approaches. Namely, there is a semantic gap between similarity in latent space and similarity in input space, which can corrupt interpretability. We design two experiments that exemplify this issue on the so-called ProtoPNet. Specifically, we find that this network's interpretability mechanism can be led astray by intentionally crafted or even JPEG compression artefacts, which can produce incomprehensible decisions. We argue that practitioners ought to have this shortcoming in mind when deploying prototype-based models in practice.