Teaching AI to Explain its Decisions Using Embeddings and Multi-Task Learning

Using machine learning in high-stakes applications often requires predictions to be accompanied by explanations comprehensible to the domain user, who has ultimate responsibility for decisions and outcomes. Recently, a new framework for providing explanations, called TED, has been proposed to provide meaningful explanations for predictions. This framework augments training data to include explanations elicited from domain users, in addition to features and labels. This approach ensures that explanations for predictions are tailored to the complexity expectations and domain knowledge of the consumer. In this paper, we build on this foundational work, by exploring more sophisticated instantiations of the TED framework and empirically evaluate their effectiveness in two diverse domains, chemical odor and skin cancer prediction. Results demonstrate that meaningful explanations can be reliably taught to machine learning algorithms, and in some cases, improving modeling accuracy.Comment: presented at 2019 ICML Workshop on Human in the Loop Learning (HILL 2019), Long Beach, USA. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1805.1164

Consumer-Driven Explanations for Machine Learning Decisions: An Empirical Study of Robustness

Many proposed methods for explaining machine learning predictions are in fact challenging to understand for nontechnical consumers. This paper builds upon an alternative consumer-driven approach called TED that asks for explanations to be provided in training data, along with target labels. Using semi-synthetic data from credit approval and employee retention applications, experiments are conducted to investigate some practical considerations with TED, including its performance with different classification algorithms, varying numbers of explanations, and variability in explanations. A new algorithm is proposed to handle the case where some training examples do not have explanations. Our results show that TED is robust to increasing numbers of explanations, noisy explanations, and large fractions of missing explanations, thus making advances toward its practical deployment

Don't Explain without Verifying Veracity: An Evaluation of Explainable AI with Video Activity Recognition

Explainable machine learning and artificial intelligence models have been used to justify a model's decision-making process. This added transparency aims to help improve user performance and understanding of the underlying model. However, in practice, explainable systems face many open questions and challenges. Specifically, designers might reduce the complexity of deep learning models in order to provide interpretability. The explanations generated by these simplified models, however, might not accurately justify and be truthful to the model. This can further add confusion to the users as they might not find the explanations meaningful with respect to the model predictions. Understanding how these explanations affect user behavior is an ongoing challenge. In this paper, we explore how explanation veracity affects user performance and agreement in intelligent systems. Through a controlled user study with an explainable activity recognition system, we compare variations in explanation veracity for a video review and querying task. The results suggest that low veracity explanations significantly decrease user performance and agreement compared to both accurate explanations and a system without explanations. These findings demonstrate the importance of accurate and understandable explanations and caution that poor explanations can sometimes be worse than no explanations with respect to their effect on user performance and reliance on an AI system