Research Papers

With growing applications of Machine Learning (ML) techniques in the real world, it is highly important to ensure that these models work in an equitable manner. One main step in ensuring fairness is to effectively measure fairness, and to this end, various metrics have been proposed in the past literature. While the computation of those metrics are straightforward in the classification set-up, it is computationally intractable in the regression domain. To address the challenge of computational intractability, past literature proposed various methods to approximate such metrics. However, they did not verify the extent to which the output of such approximation algorithms are consistent with each other. To fill this gap, this paper comprehensively studies the consistency of the output of various fairness measurement methods through conducting an extensive set of experiments on various regression tasks. As a result, it finds that while some fairness measurement approaches show strong consistency across various regression tasks, certain methods show a relatively poor consistency in certain regression tasks. This, in turn, calls for a more principled approach for measuring fairness in the regression domain.

On the Feasibility of Fidelity$^-$ for Graph Pruning

Yong-Min Shin, Won-Yong Shin

As one of popular quantitative metrics to assess the quality of explanation of graph neural networks (GNNs), fidelity measures the output difference after removing unimportant parts of the input graph. Fidelity has been widely used due to its straightforward interpretation that the underlying model should produce similar predictions when features deemed unimportant from the explanation are removed. This raises a natural question: "Does fidelity induce a global (soft) mask for graph pruning?" To solve this, we aim to explore the potential of the fidelity measure to be used for graph pruning, eventually enhancing the GNN models for better efficiency. To this end, we propose Fidelity$^-$-inspired Pruning (FiP), an effective framework to construct global edge masks from local explanations. Our empirical observations using 7 edge attribution methods demonstrate that, surprisingly, general eXplainable AI methods outperform methods tailored to GNNs in terms of graph pruning performance.

(Unfair) Norms in Fairness Research: A Meta-Analysis

Jennifer Chien, A. Stevie Bergman, Kevin R. McKee +5

Algorithmic fairness has emerged as a critical concern in artificial intelligence (AI) research. However, the development of fair AI systems is not an objective process. Fairness is an inherently subjective concept, shaped by the values, experiences, and identities of those involved in research and development. To better understand the norms and values embedded in current fairness research, we conduct a meta-analysis of algorithmic fairness papers from two leading conferences on AI fairness and ethics, AIES and FAccT, covering a final sample of 139 papers over the period from 2018 to 2022. Our investigation reveals two concerning trends: first, a US-centric perspective dominates throughout fairness research; and second, fairness studies exhibit a widespread reliance on binary codifications of human identity (e.g., "Black/White", "male/female"). These findings highlight how current research often overlooks the complexities of identity and lived experiences, ultimately failing to represent diverse global contexts when defining algorithmic bias and fairness. We discuss the limitations of these research design choices and offer recommendations for fostering more inclusive and representative approaches to fairness in AI systems, urging a paradigm shift that embraces nuanced, global understandings of human identity and values.

Explainable machine learning (XML) has emerged as a major challenge in artificial intelligence (AI). Although black-box models such as Deep Neural Networks and Gradient Boosting often exhibit exceptional predictive accuracy, their lack of interpretability is a notable drawback, particularly in domains requiring transparency and trust. This paper tackles this core AI problem by proposing a novel method to enhance explainability with minimal accuracy loss, using a Mixture of Linear Models (MLM) estimated under the co-supervision of black-box models. We have developed novel methods for estimating MLM by leveraging AI techniques. Specifically, we explore two approaches for partitioning the input space: agglomerative clustering and decision trees. The agglomerative clustering approach provides greater flexibility in model construction, while the decision tree approach further enhances explainability, yielding a decision tree model with linear or logistic regression models at its leaf nodes. Comparative analyses with widely-used and state-of-the-art predictive models demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods. Experimental results show that statistical models can significantly enhance the explainability of AI, thereby broadening their potential for real-world applications. Our findings highlight the critical role that statistical methodologies can play in advancing explainable AI.

Fairness is one of the most commonly identified ethical principles in existing AI guidelines, and the development of fair AI-enabled systems is required by new and emerging AI regulation. But most approaches to addressing the fairness of AI-enabled systems are limited in scope in two significant ways: their substantive content focuses on statistical measures of fairness, and they do not emphasize the need to identify and address fairness considerations across the whole AI lifecycle. Our contribution is to present an assurance framework and tool that can enable a practical and transparent method for widening the scope of fairness considerations across the AI lifecycle and move the discussion beyond mere statistical notions of fairness to consider a richer analysis in a practical and context-dependent manner. To illustrate this approach, we first describe and then apply the framework of Trustworthy and Ethical Assurance (TEA) to an AI-enabled clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) whose purpose is to help clinicians predict the risk of developing hypertension in patients with Type 2 diabetes, a context in which several fairness considerations arise (e.g., discrimination against patient subgroups). This is supplemented by an open-source tool and a fairness considerations map to help facilitate reasoning about the fairness of AI-enabled systems in a participatory way. In short, by using a shared framework for identifying, documenting and justifying fairness considerations, and then using this deliberative exercise to structure an assurance case, research on AI fairness becomes reusable and generalizable for others in the ethical AI community and for sharing best practices for achieving fairness and equity in digital health and healthcare in particular.

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have become a powerful tool for modeling complex relationships in large-scale datasets. However, their black-box nature poses trustworthiness challenges. In certain situations, ensuring trust in predictions might require following specific partial monotonicity constraints. However, certifying if an already-trained ANN is partially monotonic is challenging. Therefore, ANNs are often disregarded in some critical applications, such as credit scoring, where partial monotonicity is required. To address this challenge, this paper presents a novel algorithm (LipVor) that certifies if a black-box model, such as an ANN, is positive based on a finite number of evaluations. Consequently, since partial monotonicity can be expressed as a positivity condition on partial derivatives, LipVor can certify whether an ANN is partially monotonic. To do so, for every positively evaluated point, the Lipschitzianity of the black-box model is used to construct a specific neighborhood where the function remains positive. Next, based on the Voronoi diagram of the evaluated points, a sufficient condition is stated to certify if the function is positive in the domain. Unlike prior methods, our approach certifies partial monotonicity without constrained architectures or piece-wise linear activations. Therefore, LipVor could open up the possibility of using unconstrained ANN in some critical fields. Moreover, some other properties of an ANN, such as convexity, can be posed as positivity conditions, and therefore, LipVor could also be applied.

In this paper, we introduce a post-hoc and local explainable AI method tailored for Knowledge Graph Embedding (KGE) models. These models are essential to Knowledge Graph Completion yet criticized for their opaque, black-box nature. Despite their significant success in capturing the semantics of knowledge graphs through high-dimensional latent representations, their inherent complexity poses substantial challenges to explainability. While existing methods like Kelpie use resource-intensive perturbation to explain KGE models, our approach directly decodes the latent representations encoded by KGE models, leveraging the smoothness of the embeddings, which follows the principle that similar embeddings reflect similar behaviours within the Knowledge Graph, meaning that nodes are similarly embedded because their graph neighbourhood looks similar. This principle is commonly referred to as smoothness. By identifying symbolic structures, in the form of triples, within the subgraph neighborhoods of similarly embedded entities, our method identifies the statistical regularities on which the models rely and translates these insights into human-understandable symbolic rules and facts. This bridges the gap between the abstract representations of KGE models and their predictive outputs, offering clear, interpretable insights. Key contributions include a novel post-hoc and local explainable AI method for KGE models that provides immediate, faithful explanations without retraining, facilitating real-time application on large-scale knowledge graphs. The method's flexibility enables the generation of rule-based, instance-based, and analogy-based explanations, meeting diverse user needs. Extensive evaluations show the effectiveness of our approach in delivering faithful and well-localized explanations, enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of KGE models.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized how we interact with machines. However, this technological advancement has been paralleled by the emergence of "Mallas," malicious services operating underground that exploit LLMs for nefarious purposes. Such services create malware, phishing attacks, and deceptive websites, escalating the cyber security threats landscape. This paper delves into the proliferation of Mallas by examining the use of various pre-trained language models and their efficiency and vulnerabilities when misused. Building on a dataset from the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program, it explores fine-tuning methodologies to generate code and explanatory text related to identified vulnerabilities. This research aims to shed light on the operational strategies and exploitation techniques of Mallas, leading to the development of more secure and trustworthy AI applications. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for further research, enhanced safeguards, and ethical guidelines to mitigate the risks associated with the malicious application of LLMs.

The field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly influencing health and healthcare, but bias and poor performance persists for populations who face widespread structural oppression. Previous work has clearly outlined the need for more rigorous attention to data representativeness and model performance to advance equity and reduce bias. However, there is an opportunity to also improve the explainability of AI by leveraging best practices of social epidemiology and health equity to help us develop hypotheses for associations found. In this paper, we focus on explainable AI (XAI) and describe a framework for interdisciplinary expert panel review to discuss and critically assess AI model explanations from multiple perspectives and identify areas of bias and directions for future research. We emphasize the importance of the interdisciplinary expert panel to produce more accurate, equitable interpretations which are historically and contextually informed. Interdisciplinary panel discussions can help reduce bias, identify potential confounders, and identify opportunities for additional research where there are gaps in the literature. In turn, these insights can suggest opportunities for AI model improvement.

This study explores the relationship between informational support seeking questions, responses, and helpfulness ratings in online health communities. We created a labeled data set of question-response pairs and developed multimodal machine learning and deep learning models to reliably predict informational support questions and responses. We employed explainable AI to reveal the emotions embedded in informational support exchanges, demonstrating the importance of emotion in providing informational support. This complex interplay between emotional and informational support has not been previously researched. The study refines social support theory and lays the groundwork for the development of user decision aids. Further implications are discussed.

This study presents insights gathered from surveys and discussions with specialists in three domains, aiming to find essential elements for a universal explanation framework that could be applied to these and other similar use cases. The insights are incorporated into a software tool that utilizes GP algorithms, known for their interpretability. The applications analyzed include a medical scenario (involving predictive ML), a retail use case (involving prescriptive ML), and an energy use case (also involving predictive ML). We interviewed professionals from each sector, transcribing their conversations for further analysis. Additionally, experts and non-experts in these fields filled out questionnaires designed to probe various dimensions of explanatory methods. The findings indicate a universal preference for sacrificing a degree of accuracy in favor of greater explainability. Additionally, we highlight the significance of feature importance and counterfactual explanations as critical components of such a framework. Our questionnaires are publicly available to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge in the field of XAI.

The transformative potential of AI presents remarkable opportunities, but also significant risks, underscoring the importance of responsible AI development and deployment. Despite a growing emphasis on this area, there is limited understanding of industry's engagement in responsible AI research, i.e., the systematic examination of AI's ethical, social, and legal dimensions. To address this gap, we analyzed over 6 million peer-reviewed articles and 32 million patent citations using multiple methods across five distinct datasets to quantify industry's engagement. Our analysis reveals notable heterogeneity between industry's substantial presence in conventional AI research and its comparatively modest engagement in responsible AI. Leading AI firms exhibit significantly lower output in responsible AI research compared to their conventional AI research and the contributions of leading academic institutions. Our linguistic analysis reveals a more concentrated scope of responsible AI research within industry, with fewer distinct key topics addressed. Our large-scale patent citation analysis uncovers limited linkage between responsible AI research and the commercialization of AI technologies, suggesting that industry patents infrequently draw upon insights from the responsible AI literature. These patterns raise important questions about the integration of responsible AI considerations into commercialization practices, with potential implications for the alignment of AI development with broader societal objectives. Our results highlight the need for industry to publicly engage in responsible AI research to absorb academic knowledge, cultivate public trust, and proactively address the societal dimensions of AI development.