Responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach

Causality is typically treated an all-or-nothing concept; either A is a cause of B or it is not. We extend the definition of causality introduced by Halpern and Pearl [2001] to take into account the degree of responsibility of A for B. For example, if someone wins an election 11--0, then each person who votes for him is less responsible for the victory than if he had won 6--5. We then define a notion of degree of blame, which takes into account an agent's epistemic state. Roughly speaking, the degree of blame of A for B is the expected degree of responsibility of A for B, taken over the epistemic state of an agent

Multiple Different Explanations for Image Classifiers

Existing explanation tools for image classifiers usually give only one single explanation for an image. For many images, however, both humans and image classifiers accept more than one explanation for the image label. Thus, restricting the number of explanations to just one severely limits the insight into the behavior of the classifier. In this paper, we describe an algorithm and a tool, REX, for computing multiple explanations of the output of a black-box image classifier for a given image. Our algorithm uses a principled approach based on causal theory. We analyse its theoretical complexity and provide experimental results showing that REX finds multiple explanations on 7 times more images than the previous work on the ImageNet-mini benchmark

Ranking Policy Decisions

Policies trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) are often needlessly complex, making them difficult to analyse and interpret. In a run with $n$ time steps, a policy will make $n$ decisions on actions to take; we conjecture that only a small subset of these decisions delivers value over selecting a simple default action. Given a trained policy, we propose a novel black-box method based on statistical fault localisation that ranks the states of the environment according to the importance of decisions made in those states. We argue that among other things, the ranked list of states can help explain and understand the policy. As the ranking method is statistical, a direct evaluation of its quality is hard. As a proxy for quality, we use the ranking to create new, simpler policies from the original ones by pruning decisions identified as unimportant (that is, replacing them by default actions) and measuring the impact on performance. Our experiments on a diverse set of standard benchmarks demonstrate that pruned policies can perform on a level comparable to the original policies. Conversely, we show that naive approaches for ranking policy decisions, e.g., ranking based on the frequency of visiting a state, do not result in high-performing pruned policies

Equality of Effort via Algorithmic Recourse

This paper proposes a method for measuring fairness through equality of effort by applying algorithmic recourse through minimal interventions. Equality of effort is a property that can be quantified at both the individual and the group level. It answers the counterfactual question: what is the minimal cost for a protected individual or the average minimal cost for a protected group of individuals to reverse the outcome computed by an automated system? Algorithmic recourse increases the flexibility and applicability of the notion of equal effort: it overcomes its previous limitations by reconciling multiple treatment variables, introducing feasibility and plausibility constraints, and integrating the actual relative costs of interventions. We extend the existing definition of equality of effort and present an algorithm for its assessment via algorithmic recourse. We validate our approach both on synthetic data and on the German credit dataset