Proceedings

Glass-Box: Explaining AI Decisions With Counterfactual Statements Through Conversation With a Voice-enabled Virtual Assistant

Download BibTeX Cite

Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Demos. Pages 5868-5870.

https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/865

Abstract

The prevalence of automated decision making, influencing important aspects of our lives -- e.g., school admission, job market, insurance and banking -- has resulted in increasing pressure from society and regulators to make this process more transparent and ensure its explainability, accountability and fairness. We demonstrate a prototype voice-enabled device, called Glass-Box, which users can question to understand automated decisions and identify the underlying model's biases and errors. Our system explains algorithmic predictions with class-contrastive counterfactual statements (e.g., ``Had a number of conditions been different:...the prediction would change...''), which show a difference in a particular scenario that causes an algorithm to ``change its mind''. Such explanations do not require any prior technical knowledge to understand, hence are suitable for a lay audience, who interact with the system in a natural way -- through an interactive dialogue. We demonstrate the capabilities of the device by allowing users to impersonate a loan applicant who can question the system to understand the automated decision that he received.

  1. [Kim et al., 2014] Been Kim, Cynthia Rudin, and Julie A Shah. The bayesian case model: A generative approach for case-based reasoning and prototype classification. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1952-1960, 2014.
  2. [Kusner et al., 2017] Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 4069-4079, 2017.
  3. [Miller et al., 2017] Tim Miller, Piers Howe, and Liz Sonen- berg. Explainable ai: Beware of inmates running the asy- lum. In IJCAI-17 Workshop on Explainable AI (XAI), page 36, 2017.
  4. [Miller, 2017] Tim Miller. Explanation in artificial intelli- gence: Insights from the social sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07269, 2017.
  5. [Ribeiro et al., 2016] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135-1144. ACM, 2016.
  6. [Smilkov et al., 2016] Daniel Smilkov, Nikhil Thorat, Charles Nicholson, Emily Reif, Fernanda B Viégas, and Martin Wattenberg. Embedding projector: Interactive visualization and interpretation of embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.05469, 2016.
  7. [Tolomei et al., 2017] Gabriele Tolomei, Fabrizio Silvestri, Andrew Haines, and Mounia Lalmas. Interpretable predic- tions of tree-based ensembles via actionable feature tweak- ing. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD Interna- tional Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Min- ing, pages 465-474. ACM, 2017.
  8. [Wachter et al., 2017] Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, (Forth- coming), 2017.

References were extracted automatically from the PDF and may contain errors.

Welcome Future Conferences AI Journal Division IJCAI Proceedings About IJCAI IJCAI Awards