Research Papers

With the rising adoption of Machine Learning across the domains like banking, pharmaceutical, ed-tech, etc, it has become utmost important to adopt responsible AI methods to ensure models are not unfairly discriminating against any group. Given the lack of clean training data, generative adversarial techniques are preferred to generate synthetic data with several state-of-the-art architectures readily available across various domains from unstructured data such as text, images to structured datasets modelling fraud detection and many more. These techniques overcome several challenges such as class imbalance, limited training data, restricted access to data due to privacy issues. Existing work focusing on generating fair data either works for a certain GAN architecture or is very difficult to tune across the GANs. In this paper, we propose a pipeline to generate fairer synthetic data independent of the GAN architecture. The proposed paper utilizes a pre-processing algorithm to identify and remove bias inducing samples. In particular, we claim that while generating synthetic data most GANs amplify bias present in the training data but by removing these bias inducing samples, GANs essentially focuses more on real informative samples. Our experimental evaluation on two open-source datasets demonstrates how the proposed pipeline is generating fair data along with improved performance in some cases.

On the Evaluation of the Plausibility and Faithfulness of Sentiment Analysis Explanations

Julia El Zini, Mohamad Mansour, Basel Mousi +1

Current Explainable AI (ExAI) methods, especially in the NLP field, are conducted on various datasets by employing different metrics to evaluate several aspects. The lack of a common evaluation framework is hindering the progress tracking of such methods and their wider adoption. In this work, inspired by offline information retrieval, we propose different metrics and techniques to evaluate the explainability of SA models from two angles. First, we evaluate the strength of the extracted "rationales" in faithfully explaining the predicted outcome. Second, we measure the agreement between ExAI methods and human judgment on a homegrown dataset1 to reflect on the rationales plausibility. Our conducted experiments comprise four dimensions: (1) the underlying architectures of SA models, (2) the approach followed by the ExAI method, (3) the reasoning difficulty, and (4) the homogeneity of the ground-truth rationales. We empirically demonstrate that anchors explanations are more aligned with the human judgment and can be more confident in extracting supporting rationales. As can be foreseen, the reasoning complexity of sentiment is shown to thwart ExAI methods from extracting supporting evidence. Moreover, a remarkable discrepancy is discerned between the results of different explainability methods on the various architectures suggesting the need for consolidation to observe enhanced performance. Predominantly, transformers are shown to exhibit better explainability than convolutional and recurrent architectures. Our work paves the way towards designing more interpretable NLP models and enabling a common evaluation ground for their relative strengths and robustness.

OAK4XAI: Model towards Out-Of-Box eXplainable Artificial Intelligence for Digital Agriculture

Quoc Hung Ngo, Tahar Kechadi, Nhien-An Le-Khac

Recent machine learning approaches have been effective in Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. They produce robust results with a high level of accuracy. However, most of these techniques do not provide human-understandable explanations for supporting their results and decisions. They usually act as black boxes, and it is not easy to understand how decisions have been made. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which has received much interest recently, tries to provide human-understandable explanations for decision-making and trained AI models. For instance, in digital agriculture, related domains often present peculiar or input features with no link to background knowledge. The application of the data mining process on agricultural data leads to results (knowledge), which are difficult to explain. In this paper, we propose a knowledge map model and an ontology design as an XAI framework (OAK4XAI) to deal with this issue. The framework does not only consider the data analysis part of the process, but it takes into account the semantics aspect of the domain knowledge via an ontology and a knowledge map model, provided as modules of the framework. Many ongoing XAI studies aim to provide accurate and verbalizable accounts for how given feature values contribute to model decisions. The proposed approach, however, focuses on providing consistent information and definitions of concepts, algorithms, and values involved in the data mining models. We built an Agriculture Computing Ontology (AgriComO) to explain the knowledge mined in agriculture. AgriComO has a well-designed structure and includes a wide range of concepts and transformations suitable for agriculture and computing domains.

Predictive parity (PP), also known as sufficiency, is a core definition of algorithmic fairness essentially stating that model outputs must have the same interpretation of expected outcomes regardless of group. Testing and satisfying PP is especially important in many settings where model scores are interpreted by humans or directly provide access to opportunity, such as healthcare or banking. Solutions for PP violations have primarily been studied through the lens of model calibration. However, we find that existing calibration-based tests and mitigation methods are designed for independent data, which is often not assumable in large-scale applications such as social media or medical testing. In this work, we address this issue by developing a statistically rigorous non-parametric regression based test for PP with dependent observations. We then apply our test to illustrate that PP testing can significantly vary under the two assumptions. Lastly, we provide a mitigation solution to provide a minimally-biased post-processing transformation function to achieve PP.

Doctor XAvIer: Explainable Diagnosis on Physician-Patient Dialogues and XAI Evaluation

Hillary Ngai, Frank Rudzicz

We introduce Doctor XAvIer, a BERT-based diagnostic system that extracts relevant clinical data from transcribed patient-doctor dialogues and explains predictions using feature attribution methods. We present a novel performance plot and evaluation metric for feature attribution methods: Feature Attribution Dropping (FAD) curve and its Normalized Area Under the Curve (N-AUC). FAD curve analysis shows that integrated gradients outperforms Shapley values in explaining diagnosis classification. Doctor XAvIer outperforms the baseline with 0.97 F1-score in named entity recognition and symptom pertinence classification and 0.91 F1-score in diagnosis classification.

Explaining Reject Options of Learning Vector Quantization Classifiers

André Artelt, Johannes Brinkrolf, Roel Visser +1

While machine learning models are usually assumed to always output a prediction, there also exist extensions in the form of reject options which allow the model to reject inputs where only a prediction with an unacceptably low certainty would be possible. With the ongoing rise of eXplainable AI, a lot of methods for explaining model predictions have been developed. However, understanding why a given input was rejected, instead of being classified by the model, is also of interest. Surprisingly, explanations of rejects have not been considered so far. We propose to use counterfactual explanations for explaining rejects and investigate how to efficiently compute counterfactual explanations of different reject options for an important class of models, namely prototype-based classifiers such as learning vector quantization models.

By defining the current limits (and thereby the frontiers), many boundaries are shaping, and will continue to shape, the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We push on these boundaries in order to make further progress into what were yesterday's frontiers. They are both pliable and resilient - always creating new boundaries of what AI can (or should) achieve. Among these are technical boundaries (such as processing capacity), psychological boundaries (such as human trust in AI systems), ethical boundaries (such as with AI weapons), and conceptual boundaries (such as the AI people can imagine). It is within this final category while it can play a fundamental role in all other boundaries} that we find the construct of needs and the limitations that our current concept of need places on the future AI.

An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensembles

Michael Feffer, Martin Hirzel, Samuel C. Hoffman +3

There are several bias mitigators that can reduce algorithmic bias in machine learning models but, unfortunately, the effect of mitigators on fairness is often not stable when measured across different data splits. A popular approach to train more stable models is ensemble learning. Ensembles, such as bagging, boosting, voting, or stacking, have been successful at making predictive performance more stable. One might therefore ask whether we can combine the advantages of bias mitigators and ensembles? To explore this question, we first need bias mitigators and ensembles to work together. We built an open-source library enabling the modular composition of 10 mitigators, 4 ensembles, and their corresponding hyperparameters. Based on this library, we empirically explored the space of combinations on 13 datasets, including datasets commonly used in fairness literature plus datasets newly curated by our library. Furthermore, we distilled the results into a guidance diagram for practitioners. We hope this paper will contribute towards improving stability in bias mitigation.

Australia is a leading AI nation with strong allies and partnerships. Australia has prioritised the development of robotics, AI, and autonomous systems to develop sovereign capability for the military. Australia commits to Article 36 reviews of all new means and methods of warfare to ensure weapons and weapons systems are operated within acceptable systems of control. Additionally, Australia has undergone significant reviews of the risks of AI to human rights and within intelligence organisations and has committed to producing ethics guidelines and frameworks in Security and Defence. Australia is committed to OECD's values-based principles for the responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI as well as adopting a set of National AI ethics principles. While Australia has not adopted an AI governance framework specifically for the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO); Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) has published 'A Method for Ethical AI in Defence' (MEAID) technical report which includes a framework and pragmatic tools for managing ethical and legal risks for military applications of AI. Australia can play a leadership role by integrating legal and ethical considerations into its ADO AI capability acquisition process. This requires a policy framework that defines its legal and ethical requirements, is informed by Defence industry stakeholders, and provides a practical methodology to integrate legal and ethical risk mitigation strategies into the acquisition process.

Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics

Ramya Srinivasan, Devi Parikh

In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. Across academia, industry, and government bodies, a variety of endeavours are being pursued towards enhancing AI ethics. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. These different perspectives are often not understood, due in part to communication gaps.For example, AI researchers who design and develop AI models are not necessarily aware of the instability induced in consumers' lives by the compounded effects of AI decisions. Educating different stakeholders about their roles and responsibilities in the broader context becomes necessary. In this position paper, we outline some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools for surfacing different perspectives. We hope to spark interdisciplinary discussions about computational creativity broadly as a tool for enhancing AI ethics.

Pitfalls of Explainable ML: An Industry Perspective

Sahil Verma, Aditya Lahiri, John P. Dickerson +1

As machine learning (ML) systems take a more prominent and central role in contributing to life-impacting decisions, ensuring their trustworthiness and accountability is of utmost importance. Explanations sit at the core of these desirable attributes of a ML system. The emerging field is frequently called ``Explainable AI (XAI)'' or ``Explainable ML.'' The goal of explainable ML is to intuitively explain the predictions of a ML system, while adhering to the needs to various stakeholders. Many explanation techniques were developed with contributions from both academia and industry. However, there are several existing challenges that have not garnered enough interest and serve as roadblocks to widespread adoption of explainable ML. In this short paper, we enumerate challenges in explainable ML from an industry perspective. We hope these challenges will serve as promising future research directions, and would contribute to democratizing explainable ML.

The widespread utilization of AI systems has drawn attention to the potential impacts of such systems on society. Of particular concern are the consequences that prediction errors may have on real-world scenarios, and the trust humanity places in AI systems. It is necessary to understand how we can evaluate trustworthiness in AI and how individuals and entities alike can develop trustworthy AI systems. In this paper, we analyze each element of trustworthiness and provide a set of 20 guidelines that can be leveraged to ensure optimal AI functionality while taking into account the greater ethical, technical, and practical impacts to humanity. Moreover, the guidelines help ensure that trustworthiness is provable and can be demonstrated, they are implementation agnostic, and they can be applied to any AI system in any sector.