1,170 research outputs found
Interpretable Credit Application Predictions With Counterfactual Explanations
International audienceWe predict credit applications with off-the-shelf, interchangeable black-box clas-sifiers and we explain single predictions with counterfactual explanations. Coun-terfactual explanations expose the minimal changes required on the input data to obtain a different result e.g., approved vs rejected application. Despite their effectiveness , counterfactuals are mainly designed for changing an undesired outcome of a prediction i.e. loan rejected. Counterfactuals, however, can be difficult to interpret , especially when a high number of features are involved in the explanation. Our contribution is twofold: i) we propose positive counterfactuals, i.e. we adapt counterfactual explanations to also explain accepted loan applications, and ii) we propose two weighting strategies to generate more interpretable counterfactuals. Experiments on the HELOC loan applications dataset show that our contribution outperforms the baseline counterfactual generation strategy, by leading to smaller and hence more interpretable counterfactuals
Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach
We examine counterfactual explanations for explaining the decisions made by
model-based AI systems. The counterfactual approach we consider defines an
explanation as a set of the system's data inputs that causally drives the
decision (i.e., changing the inputs in the set changes the decision) and is
irreducible (i.e., changing any subset of the inputs does not change the
decision). We (1) demonstrate how this framework may be used to provide
explanations for decisions made by general, data-driven AI systems that may
incorporate features with arbitrary data types and multiple predictive models,
and (2) propose a heuristic procedure to find the most useful explanations
depending on the context. We then contrast counterfactual explanations with
methods that explain model predictions by weighting features according to their
importance (e.g., SHAP, LIME) and present two fundamental reasons why we should
carefully consider whether importance-weight explanations are well-suited to
explain system decisions. Specifically, we show that (i) features that have a
large importance weight for a model prediction may not affect the corresponding
decision, and (ii) importance weights are insufficient to communicate whether
and how features influence decisions. We demonstrate this with several concise
examples and three detailed case studies that compare the counterfactual
approach with SHAP to illustrate various conditions under which counterfactual
explanations explain data-driven decisions better than importance weights
Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations
Post-hoc explanations of machine learning models are crucial for people to
understand and act on algorithmic predictions. An intriguing class of
explanations is through counterfactuals, hypothetical examples that show people
how to obtain a different prediction. We posit that effective counterfactual
explanations should satisfy two properties: feasibility of the counterfactual
actions given user context and constraints, and diversity among the
counterfactuals presented. To this end, we propose a framework for generating
and evaluating a diverse set of counterfactual explanations based on
determinantal point processes. To evaluate the actionability of
counterfactuals, we provide metrics that enable comparison of
counterfactual-based methods to other local explanation methods. We further
address necessary tradeoffs and point to causal implications in optimizing for
counterfactuals. Our experiments on four real-world datasets show that our
framework can generate a set of counterfactuals that are diverse and well
approximate local decision boundaries, outperforming prior approaches to
generating diverse counterfactuals. We provide an implementation of the
framework at https://github.com/microsoft/DiCE.Comment: 13 page
Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systems
The recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure decision
systems which hide the logic of their internal decision processes to the users.
The lack of explanations for the decisions of black box systems is a key
ethical issue, and a limitation to the adoption of machine learning components
in socially sensitive and safety-critical contexts. %Therefore, we need
explanations that reveals the reasons why a predictor takes a certain decision.
In this paper we focus on the problem of black box outcome explanation, i.e.,
explaining the reasons of the decision taken on a specific instance. We propose
LORE, an agnostic method able to provide interpretable and faithful
explanations. LORE first leans a local interpretable predictor on a synthetic
neighborhood generated by a genetic algorithm. Then it derives from the logic
of the local interpretable predictor a meaningful explanation consisting of: a
decision rule, which explains the reasons of the decision; and a set of
counterfactual rules, suggesting the changes in the instance's features that
lead to a different outcome. Wide experiments show that LORE outperforms
existing methods and baselines both in the quality of explanations and in the
accuracy in mimicking the black box
The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines
Algorithmic decision-making has become synonymous with inexplicable decision-making, but what makes algorithms so difficult to explain? This Article examines what sets machine learning apart from other ways of developing rules for decision-making and the problem these properties pose for explanation. We show that machine learning models can be both inscrutable and nonintuitive and that these are related, but distinct, properties. Calls for explanation have treated these problems as one and the same, but disentangling the two reveals that they demand very different responses. Dealing with inscrutability requires providing a sensible description of the rules; addressing nonintuitiveness requires providing a satisfying explanation for why the rules are what they are. Existing laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as techniques within machine learning, are focused almost entirely on the problem of inscrutability. While such techniques could allow a machine learning system to comply with existing law, doing so may not help if the goal is to assess whether the basis for decision-making is normatively defensible. In most cases, intuition serves as the unacknowledged bridge between a descriptive account and a normative evaluation. But because machine learning is often valued for its ability to uncover statistical relationships that defy intuition, relying on intuition is not a satisfying approach. This Article thus argues for other mechanisms for normative evaluation. To know why the rules are what they are, one must seek explanations of the process behind a model’s development, not just explanations of the model itself
- …