Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?

The potential for machine learning (ML) systems to amplify social inequities and unfairness is receiving increasing popular and academic attention. A surge of recent work has focused on the development of algorithmic tools to assess and mitigate such unfairness. If these tools are to have a positive impact on industry practice, however, it is crucial that their design be informed by an understanding of real-world needs. Through 35 semi-structured interviews and an anonymous survey of 267 ML practitioners, we conduct the first systematic investigation of commercial product teams' challenges and needs for support in developing fairer ML systems. We identify areas of alignment and disconnect between the challenges faced by industry practitioners and solutions proposed in the fair ML research literature. Based on these findings, we highlight directions for future ML and HCI research that will better address industry practitioners' needs.Comment: To appear in the 2019 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019

Audit and AI: Can Artificial Intelligence Restore Public Trust?

Due to the fallout from a series of corporate fraud scandals in the late 2000s, the auditing world has lost much of the public trust that is very important to the profession. Much of the value of an audit opinion is determined by the trust the public places in the auditors behind the opinion. Without trust in the auditors, the audit opinion has very little value. The recent increase in the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) in many industries presents a solution to the problem of auditors. Increased usage of AI in the audit process has the potential to better meet public demand for an audit as well as restore public trust

Reinforcement learning for efficient network penetration testing

Penetration testing (also known as pentesting or PT) is a common practice for actively assessing the defenses of a computer network by planning and executing all possible attacks to discover and exploit existing vulnerabilities. Current penetration testing methods are increasingly becoming non-standard, composite and resource-consuming despite the use of evolving tools. In this paper, we propose and evaluate an AI-based pentesting system which makes use of machine learning techniques, namely reinforcement learning (RL) to learn and reproduce average and complex pentesting activities. The proposed system is named Intelligent Automated Penetration Testing System (IAPTS) consisting of a module that integrates with industrial PT frameworks to enable them to capture information, learn from experience, and reproduce tests in future similar testing cases. IAPTS aims to save human resources while producing much-enhanced results in terms of time consumption, reliability and frequency of testing. IAPTS takes the approach of modeling PT environments and tasks as a partially observed Markov decision process (POMDP) problem which is solved by POMDP-solver. Although the scope of this paper is limited to network infrastructures PT planning and not the entire practice, the obtained results support the hypothesis that RL can enhance PT beyond the capabilities of any human PT expert in terms of time consumed, covered attacking vectors, accuracy and reliability of the outputs. In addition, this work tackles the complex problem of expertise capturing and re-use by allowing the IAPTS learning module to store and re-use PT policies in the same way that a human PT expert would learn but in a more efficient way

Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR

There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages. Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their rationale in specific cases is a technically challenging problem. Some explanations may offer little meaningful information to data subjects, raising questions around their value. Explanations of automated decisions need not hinge on the general public understanding how algorithmic systems function. Even though such interpretability is of great importance and should be pursued, explanations can, in principle, be offered without opening the black box. Looking at explanations as a means to help a data subject act rather than merely understand, one could gauge the scope and content of explanations according to the specific goal or action they are intended to support. From the perspective of individuals affected by automated decision-making, we propose three aims for explanations: (1) to inform and help the individual understand why a particular decision was reached, (2) to provide grounds to contest the decision if the outcome is undesired, and (3) to understand what would need to change in order to receive a desired result in the future, based on the current decision-making model. We assess how each of these goals finds support in the GDPR. We suggest data controllers should offer a particular type of explanation, unconditional counterfactual explanations, to support these three aims. These counterfactual explanations describe the smallest change to the world that can be made to obtain a desirable outcome, or to arrive at the closest possible world, without needing to explain the internal logic of the system

Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract

Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, `SITL = HITL + Social Contract.'Comment: (in press), Ethics of Information Technology, 201

Explaining Explanations in AI

Recent work on interpretability in machine learning and AI has focused on the building of simplified models that approximate the true criteria used to make decisions. These models are a useful pedagogical device for teaching trained professionals how to predict what decisions will be made by the complex system, and most importantly how the system might break. However, when considering any such model it’s important to remember Box’s maxim that "All models are wrong but some are useful." We focus on the distinction between these models and explanations in philosophy and sociology. These models can be understood as a "do it yourself kit" for explanations, allowing a practitioner to directly answer "what if questions" or generate contrastive explanations without external assistance. Although a valuable ability, giving these models as explanations appears more difficult than necessary, and other forms of explanation may not have the same trade-offs. We contrast the different schools of thought on what makes an explanation, and suggest that machine learning might benefit from viewing the problem more broadly