The complete reason behind a decision is a Boolean formula that characterizes why the decision was made. This recently introduced notion has a number of applications, which include generating explanations, detecting decision bias and evaluating counterfactual queries. Prime implicants of the complete reason are known as sufficient reasons for the decision and they correspond to what is known as PI explanations and abductive explanations. In this paper, we refer to the prime implicates of a complete reason as necessary reasons for the decision. We justify this terminology semantically and show that necessary reasons correspond to what is known as contrastive explanations. We also study the computation of complete reasons for multi-class decision trees and graphs with nominal and numeric features for which we derive efficient, closed-form complete reasons. We further investigate the computation of shortest necessary and sufficient reasons for a broad class of complete reasons, which include the derived closed forms and the complete reasons for Sentential Decision Diagrams (SDDs). We provide an algorithm which can enumerate their shortest necessary reasons in output polynomial time. Enumerating shortest sufficient reasons for this class of complete reasons is hard even for a single reason. For this problem, we provide an algorithm that appears to be quite efficient as we show empirically.
more »
« less
MADMAX: a DSL for explanatory decision making
MADMAX is a Haskell-embedded DSL for multi-attribute, multi-layered decision making. An important feature of this DSL is the ability to generate explanations of why a computed optimal solution is better than its alternatives.
The functional approach and Haskell's type system support a high-level formulation of decision-making problems, which facilitates a number of innovations, including the gradual evolution and adaptation of problem representations, a more user-friendly form of sensitivity analysis based on problem domain data, and fine-grained control over explanations.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10339412
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 144 to 155
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
AI systems have been known to amplify biases in real-world data. Explanations may help human-AI teams address these biases for fairer decision-making. Typically, explanations focus on salient input features. If a model is biased against some protected group, explanations may include features that demonstrate this bias, but when biases are realized through proxy features, the relationship between this proxy feature and the protected one may be less clear to a human. In this work, we study the effect of the presence of protected and proxy features on participants’ perception of model fairness and their ability to improve demographic parity over an AI alone. Further, we examine how different treatments—explanations, model bias disclosure and proxy correlation disclosure—affect fairness perception and parity. We find that explanations help people detect direct but not indirect biases. Additionally, regardless of bias type, explanations tend to increase agreement with model biases. Disclosures can help mitigate this effect for indirect biases, improving both unfairness recognition and decision-making fairness. We hope that our findings can help guide further research into advancing explanations in support of fair human-AI decision-making.more » « less
-
Recent years have witnessed the growing literature in empirical evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods. This study contributes to this ongoing conversation by presenting a comparison on the effects of a set of established XAI methods in AI-assisted decision making. Based on our review of previous literature, we highlight three desirable properties that ideal AI explanations should satisfy — improve people’s understanding of the AI model, help people recognize the model uncertainty, and support people’s calibrated trust in the model. Through three randomized controlled experiments, we evaluate whether four types of common model-agnostic explainable AI methods satisfy these properties on two types of AI models of varying levels of complexity, and in two kinds of decision making contexts where people perceive themselves as having different levels of domain expertise. Our results demonstrate that many AI explanations do not satisfy any of the desirable properties when used on decision making tasks that people have little domain expertise in. On decision making tasks that people are more knowledgeable, the feature contribution explanation is shown to satisfy more desiderata of AI explanations, even when the AI model is inherently complex. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for improving the design of XAI methods to better support human decision making, and for advancing more rigorous empirical evaluation of XAI methods.more » « less
-
Building an integrated human-machine decision-making system requires developing effective interfaces between the human and the machine. We develop such an interface by studying the multi-armed bandit problem, a simple sequential decision-making paradigm that can model a variety of tasks. We construct Bayesian algorithms for the multi-armed ban- dit problem, prove conditions under which these algorithms achieve good performance, and empirically show that, with appropriate priors, these algorithms effectively model human choice behavior; the priors then form a principled interface from human to machine. We take a signal processing perspective on the prior estimation problem and develop methods to estimate the priors given human choice data.more » « less
-
Explanations promise to bridge the gap between humans and AI, yet it remains difficult to achieve consistent improvement in AI-augmented human decision making. The usefulness of AI explanations depends on many factors, and always showing the same type of explanation in all cases is suboptimal—so is relying on heuristics to adapt explanations for each scenario. We propose learning to explain”selectively”: for each decision that the user makes, we use a model to choose the best explanation from a set of candidates and update this model with feedback to optimize human performance. We experiment on a question answering task, Quizbowl, and show that selective explanations improve human performance for both experts and crowdworkers.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3486609.3487206
