Research Papers

AI is transforming the existing technology landscape at a rapid phase enabling data-informed decision making and autonomous decision making. Unlike any other technology, because of the decision-making ability of AI, ethics and governance became a key concern. There are many emerging AI risks for humanity, such as autonomous weapons, automation-spurred job loss, socio-economic inequality, bias caused by data and algorithms, privacy violations and deepfakes. Social diversity, equity and inclusion are considered key success factors of AI to mitigate risks, create values and drive social justice. Sustainability became a broad and complex topic entangled with AI. Many organizations (government, corporate, not-for-profits, charities and NGOs) have diversified strategies driving AI for business optimization and social-and-environmental justice. Partnerships and collaborations become important more than ever for equity and inclusion of diversified and distributed people, data and capabilities. Therefore, in our journey towards an AI-enabled sustainable future, we need to address AI ethics and governance as a priority. These AI ethics and governance should be underpinned by human ethics.

RESHAPE: Explaining Accounting Anomalies in Financial Statement Audits by enhancing SHapley Additive exPlanations

Ricardo Müller, Marco Schreyer, Timur Sattarov +1

Detecting accounting anomalies is a recurrent challenge in financial statement audits. Recently, novel methods derived from Deep-Learning (DL) have been proposed to audit the large volumes of a statement's underlying accounting records. However, due to their vast number of parameters, such models exhibit the drawback of being inherently opaque. At the same time, the concealing of a model's inner workings often hinders its real-world application. This observation holds particularly true in financial audits since auditors must reasonably explain and justify their audit decisions. Nowadays, various Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed to address this challenge, e.g., SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). However, in unsupervised DL as often applied in financial audits, these methods explain the model output at the level of encoded variables. As a result, the explanations of Autoencoder Neural Networks (AENNs) are often hard to comprehend by human auditors. To mitigate this drawback, we propose (RESHAPE), which explains the model output on an aggregated attribute-level. In addition, we introduce an evaluation framework to compare the versatility of XAI methods in auditing. Our experimental results show empirical evidence that RESHAPE results in versatile explanations compared to state-of-the-art baselines. We envision such attribute-level explanations as a necessary next step in the adoption of unsupervised DL techniques in financial auditing.

Recent AI algorithms are black box models whose decisions are difficult to interpret. eXplainable AI (XAI) is a class of methods that seek to address lack of AI interpretability and trust by explaining to customers their AI decisions. The common wisdom is that regulating AI by mandating fully transparent XAI leads to greater social welfare. Our paper challenges this notion through a game theoretic model of a policy-maker who maximizes social welfare, firms in a duopoly competition that maximize profits, and heterogenous consumers. The results show that XAI regulation may be redundant. In fact, mandating fully transparent XAI may make firms and consumers worse off. This reveals a tradeoff between maximizing welfare and receiving explainable AI outputs. We extend the existing literature on method and substantive fronts, and we introduce and study the notion of XAI fairness, which may be impossible to guarantee even under mandatory XAI. Finally, the regulatory and managerial implications of our results for policy-makers and businesses are discussed, respectively.

If autonomous AI systems are to be reliably safe in novel situations, they will need to incorporate general principles guiding them to recognize and avoid harmful behaviours. Such principles may need to be supported by a binding system of regulation, which would need the underlying principles to be widely accepted. They should also be specific enough for technical implementation. Drawing inspiration from law, this article explains how negative human rights could fulfil the role of such principles and serve as a foundation both for an international regulatory system and for building technical safety constraints for future AI systems.

In Oxford Handbook on AI Governance: The Role of Workers in AI Ethics and Governance

Natalia Luka, JS Tan

While the role of states, corporations, and international organizations in AI governance has been extensively theorized, the role of workers has received comparatively little attention. This chapter looks at the role that workers play in identifying and mitigating harms from AI technologies. Harms are the causally assessed impacts of technologies. They arise despite technical reliability and are not a result of technical negligence but rather of normative uncertainty around questions of safety and fairness in complex social systems. There is high consensus in the AI ethics community on the benefits of reducing harms but less consensus on mechanisms for determining or addressing harms. This lack of consensus has resulted in a number of collective actions by workers protesting how harms are identified and addressed in their workplace. We theorize the role of workers within AI governance and construct a model of harm reporting processes in AI workplaces. The harm reporting process involves three steps, identification, the governance decision, and the response. Workers draw upon three types of claims to argue for jurisdiction over questions of AI governance, subjection, control over the product of labor, and proximate knowledge of systems. Examining the past decade of AI related worker activism allows us to understand how different types of workers are positioned within a workplace that produces AI systems, how their position informs their claims, and the place of collective action in staking their claims. This chapter argues that workers occupy a unique role in identifying and mitigating harms caused by AI systems.

Explaining firm decisions made by algorithms in customer-facing applications is increasingly required by regulators and expected by customers. While the emerging field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has mainly focused on developing algorithms that generate such explanations, there has not yet been sufficient consideration of customers' preferences for various types and formats of explanations. We discuss theoretically and study empirically people's preferences for explanations of algorithmic decisions. We focus on three main attributes that describe automatically-generated explanations from existing XAI algorithms (format, complexity, and specificity), and capture differences across contexts (online targeted advertising vs. loan applications) as well as heterogeneity in users' cognitive styles. Despite their popularity among academics, we find that counterfactual explanations are not popular among users, unless they follow a negative outcome (e.g., loan application was denied). We also find that users are willing to tolerate some complexity in explanations. Finally, our results suggest that preferences for specific (vs. more abstract) explanations are related to the level at which the decision is construed by the user, and to the deliberateness of the user's cognitive style.

In real-world image enhancement, it is often challenging (if not impossible) to acquire ground-truth data, preventing the adoption of distance metrics for objective quality assessment. As a result, one often resorts to subjective quality assessment, the most straightforward and reliable means of evaluating image enhancement. Conventional subjective testing requires manually pre-selecting a small set of visual examples, which may suffer from three sources of biases: 1) sampling bias due to the extremely sparse distribution of the selected samples in the image space; 2) algorithmic bias due to potential overfitting the selected samples; 3) subjective bias due to further potential cherry-picking test results. This eventually makes the field of real-world image enhancement more of an art than a science. Here we take steps towards debiasing conventional subjective assessment by automatically sampling a set of adaptive and diverse images for subsequent testing. This is achieved by casting sample selection into a joint maximization of the discrepancy between the enhancers and the diversity among the selected input images. Careful visual inspection on the resulting enhanced images provides a debiased ranking of the enhancement algorithms. We demonstrate our subjective assessment method using three popular and practically demanding image enhancement tasks: dehazing, super-resolution, and low-light enhancement.

What Makes a Scientific Paper be Accepted for Publication?

Panagiotis Fytas, Georgios Rizos, Lucia Specia

Despite peer-reviewing being an essential component of academia since the 1600s, it has repeatedly received criticisms for lack of transparency and consistency. We posit that recent work in machine learning and explainable AI provide tools that enable insights into the decisions from a given peer review process. We start by extracting global explanations in the form of linguistic features that affect the acceptance of a scientific paper for publication on an open peer-review dataset. Second, since such global explanations do not justify causal interpretations, we provide a methodology for detecting confounding effects in natural language in order to generate causal explanations, under assumptions, in the form of lexicons. Our proposed linguistic explanation methodology indicates the following on a case dataset of ICLR submissions: a) the organising committee follows, for the most part, the recommendations of reviewers, and, b) the paper's main characteristics that led to reviewers recommending acceptance for publication are originality, clarity and substance.

Increasing number of sectors which affect human lives, are using Machine Learning (ML) tools. Hence the need for understanding their working mechanism and evaluating their fairness in decision-making, are becoming paramount, ushering in the era of Explainable AI (XAI). In this contribution we introduced a few intrinsically interpretable models which are also capable of dealing with missing values, in addition to extracting knowledge from the dataset and about the problem. These models are also capable of visualisation of the classifier and decision boundaries: they are the angle based variants of Learning Vector Quantization. We have demonstrated the algorithms on a synthetic dataset and a real-world one (heart disease dataset from the UCI repository). The newly developed classifiers helped in investigating the complexities of the UCI dataset as a multiclass problem. The performance of the developed classifiers were comparable to those reported in literature for this dataset, with additional value of interpretability, when the dataset was treated as a binary class problem.

We propose a digital twin approach to improve healthcare decision support systems with a combination of domain knowledge and data. Domain knowledge helps build decision thresholds that doctors can use to determine a risk or recommend a treatment or test based on the specific patient condition. However, these assessments tend to be highly subjective and differ from doctor to doctor and from patient to patient. We propose a system where we collate this subjective risk by compiling data from different doctors treating different patients and build a machine learning model that learns from this knowledge. Then using state-of-the-art explainability concepts we derive explanations from this model. These explanations give us a summary of different doctor domain knowledge applied in different cases to give a more generic perspective. Also these explanations are specific to a particular patient and are customized for their condition. This is a form of a digital twin for the patient that can now be used to enhance decision boundaries for earlier defined decision tables that help in diagnosis. We will show an example of running this analysis for a liver disease risk diagnosis.

The presumed data owners' right to explanations brought about by the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe has shed light on the social challenges of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we present a case study with Deep Learning (DL) experts from a research and development laboratory focused on the delivery of industrial-strength AI technologies. Our aim was to investigate the social meaning (i.e. meaning to others) that DL experts assign to what they do, given a richly contextualized and familiar domain of application. Using qualitative research techniques to collect and analyze empirical data, our study has shown that participating DL experts did not spontaneously engage into considerations about the social meaning of machine learning models that they build. Moreover, when explicitly stimulated to do so, these experts expressed expectations that, with real-world DL application, there will be available mediators to bridge the gap between technical meanings that drive DL work, and social meanings that AI technology users assign to it. We concluded that current research incentives and values guiding the participants' scientific interests and conduct are at odds with those required to face some of the scientific challenges involved in advancing XAI, and thus responding to the alleged data owners' right to explanations or similar societal demands emerging from current debates. As a concrete contribution to mitigate what seems to be a more general problem, we propose three preliminary XAI Mediation Challenges with the potential to bring together technical and social meanings of DL applications, as well as to foster much needed interdisciplinary collaboration among AI and the Social Sciences researchers.

The Role of Normware in Trustworthy and Explainable AI

Giovanni Sileno, Alexander Boer, Tom van Engers

For being potentially destructive, in practice incomprehensible and for the most unintelligible, contemporary technology is setting high challenges on our society. New conception methods are urgently required. Reorganizing ideas and discussions presented in AI and related fields, this position paper aims to highlight the importance of normware--that is, computational artifacts specifying norms--with respect to these issues, and argues for its irreducibility with respect to software by making explicit its neglected ecological dimension in the decision-making cycle.