An official website of the United States government
Counterfactual explanations are emerging as an attractive option for providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions. As they are deployed in critical applications (e.g. law enforcement, financial lending), it becomes important to ensure that we clearly understand the vulnerabilties of these methods and find ways to address them. However, there is little understanding of the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of counterfactual explanations. In this work, we introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. More specifically, we show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a novel objective to train seemingly fair models where counterfactual explanations find much lower cost recourse under a slight perturbation. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors. We perform experiments on loan and violent crime prediction data sets where certain subgroups achieve up to 20x lower cost recourse under the perturbation. These results raise concerns regarding the dependability of current counterfactual explanation techniques, which we hope will inspire investigations in robust counterfactual explanations.
more »
« less
Algorithmic nudge: Using XAI frameworks to design interventions
In this position paper, we propose the use of existing XAI frameworks to design interventions in scenarios where algorithms expose users to problematic content (e.g. anti vaccine videos). Our intervention design includes facts (to indicate algorithmic justification of what happened) accompanied with either fore warnings or counterfactual explanations. While fore warnings indicate potential risks of an action to users, the counterfactual explanations will indicate what actions user should perform to change the algorithmic outcome. We envision the use of such interventions as `decision aids' to users which will help them make informed choices.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2041068
- PAR ID:
- 10433817
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM CHI Workshop on Operationalizing Human-Centered Perspectives in Explainable AI
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Counterfactual explanations are emerging as an attractive option for providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions. As they are deployed in critical applications (e.g. law enforcement, financial lending), it becomes important to ensure that we clearly understand the vulnerabilities of these methods and find ways to address them. However, there is little understanding of the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of counterfactual explanations. In this work, we introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. More specifically, we show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a novel objective to train seemingly fair models where counterfactual explanations find much lower cost recourse under a slight perturbation. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors. We perform experiments on loan and violent crime prediction data sets where certain subgroups achieve up to 20x lower cost recourse under the perturbation. These results raise concerns regarding the dependability of current counterfactual explanation techniques, which we hope will inspire investigations in robust counterfactual explanations.more » « less
-
Many researchers and policymakers have expressed excitement about algorithmic explanations enabling more fair and responsible decision-making. However, recent experimental studies have found that explanations do not always improve human use of algorithmic advice. In this study, we shed light on how people interpret and respond to counterfactual explanations (CFEs)---explanations that show how a model's output would change with marginal changes to its input(s)---in the context of pretrial risk assessment instruments (PRAIs). We ran think-aloud trials with eight sitting U.S. state court judges, providing them with recommendations from a PRAI that includes CFEs. We found that the CFEs did not alter the judges' decisions. At first, judges misinterpreted the counterfactuals as real---rather than hypothetical---changes to defendants. Once judges understood what the counterfactuals meant, they ignored them, stating their role is only to make decisions regarding the actual defendant in question. The judges also expressed a mix of reasons for ignoring or following the advice of the PRAI without CFEs. These results add to the literature detailing the unexpected ways in which people respond to algorithms and explanations.They also highlight new challenges associated with improving human-algorithm collaborations through explanations.more » « less
-
Machine learning is routinely used to automate consequential decisions about users in domains such as finance and healthcare, raising concerns of transparency and recourse for negative outcomes. Existing Explainable AI techniques generate a static counterfactual point explanation which recommends changes to a user's instance to obtain a positive outcome. Unfortunately, these recommendations are often difficult or impossible for users to realistically enact. To overcome this, we present FACET, the first interactive robust explanation system which generates personalized counterfactual region explanations. FACET's expressive explanation analytics empower users to explore and compare multiple counterfactual options and develop a personalized actionable plan for obtaining their desired outcome. Visitors to the demonstration will interact with FACET via a new web dashboard for explanations of a loan approval scenario. In doing so, visitors will experience how lay users can easily leverage powerful explanation analytics through visual interactions and displays without the need for a strong technical background.more » « less
-
Clickbait headlines work through superlatives and intensifiers, creating information gaps to increase the relevance of their associated links that direct users to time-wasting and sometimes even malicious websites. This approach can be amplified using targeted clickbait that takes publicly available information from social media to align clickbait to users’ preferences and beliefs. In this work, we first conducted preliminary studies to understand the influence of targeted clickbait on users’ clicking behavior. Based on our findings, we involved 24 users in the participatory design of story-based warnings against targeted clickbait. Our analysis of user-created warnings led to four design variations, which we evaluated through an online survey over Amazon Mechanical Turk. Our findings show the significance of integrating information with persuasive narratives to create effective warnings against targeted clickbait. Overall, our studies provide valuable insights into understanding users’ perceptions and behaviors towards targeted clickbait, and the efficacy of story-based interventions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
