In the last years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has achieved a notable momentum that may deliver the best of expectations over many application sectors across the field. For this to occur, the entire community stands in front of the barrier of explainability, an inherent problem of AI techniques brought by sub-symbolism (e.g. ensembles or Deep Neural Networks) that were not present in the last hype of AI. Paradigms underlying this problem fall within the so-called eXplainable AI (XAI) field, which is acknowledged as a crucial feature for the practical deployment of AI models. This overview examines the existing literature in the field of XAI, including a prospect toward what is yet to be reached. We summarize previous efforts to define explainability in Machine Learning, establishing a novel definition that covers prior conceptual propositions with a major focus on the audience for which explainability is sought. We then propose and discuss about a taxonomy of recent contributions related to the explainability of different Machine Learning models, including those aimed at Deep Learning methods for which a second taxonomy is built. This literature analysis serves as the background for a series of challenges faced by XAI, such as the crossroads between data fusion and explainability. Our prospects lead toward the concept of Responsible Artificial Intelligence, namely, a methodology for the large-scale implementation of AI methods in real organizations with fairness, model explainability and accountability at its core. Our ultimate goal is to provide newcomers to XAI with a reference material in order to stimulate future research advances, but also to encourage experts and professionals from other disciplines to embrace the benefits of AI in their activity sectors, without any prior bias for its lack of interpretability.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI

As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there is growing emphasis on building tools and techniques for explaining these black boxes in an interpretable manner. Such explanations are being leveraged by domain experts to diagnose systematic errors and underlying biases of black boxes. In this paper, we demonstrate that post hoc explanations techniques that rely on input perturbations, such as LIME and SHAP, are not reliable. Specifically, we propose a novel scaffolding technique that effectively hides the biases of any given classifier by allowing an adversarial entity to craft an arbitrary desired explanation. Our approach can be used to scaffold any biased classifier in such a way that its predictions on the input data distribution still remain biased, but the post hoc explanations of the scaffolded classifier look innocuous. Using extensive evaluation with multiple real world datasets (including COMPAS), we demonstrate how extremely biased (racist) classifiers crafted by our framework can easily fool popular explanation techniques such as LIME and SHAP into generating innocuous explanations which do not reflect the underlying biases.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3375627.3375830

Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods

Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI) more broadly have great immediate and future potential for transforming almost all aspects of medicine. However, in many applications, even outside medicine, a lack of transparency in AI applications has become increasingly problematic. This is particularly pronounced where users need to interpret the output of AI systems. Explainable AI (XAI) provides a rationale that allows users to understand why a system has produced a given output. The output can then be interpreted within a given context. One area that is in great need of XAI is that of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). These systems support medical practitioners in their clinic decision-making and in the absence of explainability may lead to issues of under or over-reliance. Providing explanations for how recommendations are arrived at will allow practitioners to make more nuanced, and in some cases, life-saving decisions. The need for XAI in CDSS, and the medical field in general, is amplified by the need for ethical and fair decision-making and the fact that AI trained with historical data can be a reinforcement agent of historical actions and biases that should be uncovered. We performed a systematic literature review of work to-date in the application of XAI in CDSS. Tabular data processing XAI-enabled systems are the most common, while XAI-enabled CDSS for text analysis are the least common in literature. There is more interest in developers for the provision of local explanations, while there was almost a balance between post-hoc and ante-hoc explanations, as well as between model-specific and model-agnostic techniques. Studies reported benefits of the use of XAI such as the fact that it could enhance decision confidence for clinicians, or generate the hypothesis about causality, which ultimately leads to increased trustworthiness and acceptability of the system and potential for its incorporation in the clinical workflow. However, we found an overall distinct lack of application of XAI in the context of CDSS and, in particular, a lack of user studies exploring the needs of clinicians. We propose some guidelines for the implementation of XAI in CDSS and explore some opportunities, challenges, and future research needs.

Current Challenges and Future Opportunities for XAI in Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review

Machine learning is increasingly used to inform decision-making in sensitive situations where decisions have consequential effects on individuals' lives. In these settings, in addition to requiring models to be accurate and robust, socially relevant values such as fairness, privacy, accountability, and explainability play an important role for the adoption and impact of said technologies. In this work, we focus on algorithmic recourse, which is concerned with providing explanations and recommendations to individuals who are unfavourably treated by automated decision-making systems. We first perform an extensive literature review, and align the efforts of many authors by presenting unified definitions, formulations, and solutions to recourse. Then, we provide an overview of the prospective research directions towards which the community may engage, challenging existing assumptions and making explicit connections to other ethical challenges such as security, privacy, and fairness.

A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects.

Black-box explanation is the problem of explaining how a machine learning model -- whose internal logic is hidden to the auditor and generally complex -- produces its outcomes. Current approaches for solving this problem include model explanation, outcome explanation as well as model inspection. While these techniques can be beneficial by providing interpretability, they can be used in a negative manner to perform fairwashing, which we define as promoting the false perception that a machine learning model respects some ethical values. In particular, we demonstrate that it is possible to systematically rationalize decisions taken by an unfair black-box model using the model explanation as well as the outcome explanation approaches with a given fairness metric. Our solution, LaundryML, is based on a regularized rule list enumeration algorithm whose objective is to search for fair rule lists approximating an unfair black-box model. We empirically evaluate our rationalization technique on black-box models trained on real-world datasets and show that one can obtain rule lists with high fidelity to the black-box model while being considerably less unfair at the same time.

Fairwashing: the risk of rationalization.

Explaining predictions made by complex machine learning models helps users understand and accept the predicted outputs with confidence One way to achieve this goal is to use similarity-based explanation that provides similar instances as evidence to support a model's prediction Several \emph{relevance metrics} are used for this purpose In this study, we investigate which relevance metric can provide a reasonable explanation to users Specifically, we adopted three tests to evaluate whether the relevance metrics satisfy the minimal requirements for similarity-based explanation Our experiments reveal that the cosine similarity of the gradients of the loss performs best, which would be a recommended choice in practice In addition, we show that some metrics performs poorly in our tests, and analyze the reasons of their failure We expect our insights to help practitioners to select appropriate relevance metrics, and also to help further researches for designing better relevance metrics for explanations

/pdf/evaluation-of-similarity-based-explanations-3d9dme2gq3.pdf

Evaluation of Similarity-based Explanations

Explaining predictions made by complex machine learning models helps users understand and accept the predicted outputs with confidence. Instance-based explanation provides such help by identifying relevant instances as evidence to support a model's prediction result. To find relevant instances, several relevance metrics have been proposed. In this study, we ask the following research question: "Do the metrics actually work in practice?" To address this question, we propose two sanity check criteria that valid metrics should pass, and two additional criteria to evaluate the practical utility of the metrics. All criteria are designed in terms of whether the metric can pick up instances of desirable properties that the users expect in practice. Through experiments, we obtained two insights. First, some popular relevance metrics do not pass sanity check criteria. Second, some metrics based on cosine similarity perform better than other metrics, which would be recommended choices in practice. We also analyze why some metrics are successful and why some are not. We expect our insights to help further researches such as developing better explanation methods or designing new evaluation criteria.

Evaluation Criteria for Instance-based Explanation.

Explaining the predictions made by complex machine learning models helps users to understand and accept the predicted outputs with confidence. One promising way is to use similarity-based explanation that provides similar instances as evidence to support model predictions. Several relevance metrics are used for this purpose. In this study, we investigated relevance metrics that can provide reasonable explanations to users. Specifically, we adopted three tests to evaluate whether the relevance metrics satisfy the minimal requirements for similarity-based explanation. Our experiments revealed that the cosine similarity of the gradients of the loss performs best, which would be a recommended choice in practice. In addition, we showed that some metrics perform poorly in our tests and analyzed the reasons of their failure. We expect our insights to help practitioners in selecting appropriate relevance metrics and also aid further researches for designing better relevance metrics for explanations.

Evaluation of Similarity-based Explanations.

Fairwashing refers to the risk that an unfair black-box model can be explained by a fairer model through post-hoc explanations' manipulation. However, to realize this, the post-hoc explanation model must produce different predictions than the original black-box on some inputs, leading to a decrease in the fidelity imposed by the difference in unfairness. In this paper, our main objective is to characterize the risk of fairwashing attacks, in particular by investigating the fidelity-unfairness trade-off. First, we demonstrate through an in-depth empirical study on black-box models trained on several real-world datasets and for several statistical notions of fairness that it is possible to build high-fidelity explanation models with low unfairness. For instance, we find that fairwashed explanation models can exhibit up to $99.20\%$ fidelity to the black-box models they explain while being $50\%$ less unfair. These results suggest that fidelity alone should not be used as a proxy for the quality of black-box explanations. Second, we show that fairwashed explanation models can generalize beyond the suing group (\emph{i.e.}, data points that are being explained), which will only worsen as more stable fairness methods get developed. Finally, we demonstrate that fairwashing attacks can transfer across black-box models, meaning that other black-box models can perform fairwashing without explicitly using their predictions.

Characterizing the risk of fairwashing

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Satoshi Hara

Author Tools

Chat about Author