Discovering the Rationale of Decisions: Experiments on Aligning Learning and Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.06758v1
• Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 10:37:03 GMT
• Title: Discovering the Rationale of Decisions: Experiments on Aligning Learning and Reasoning
• Authors: Cor Steging, Silja Renooij, Bart Verheij
• Abstract summary: We introduce a knowledge-driven method for model-agnostic rationale evaluation using dedicated test cases. We show that our method allows us to analyze the rationale of black-box machine learning systems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In AI and law, systems that are designed for decision support should be explainable when pursuing justice. In order for these systems to be fair and responsible, they should make correct decisions and make them using a sound and transparent rationale. In this paper, we introduce a knowledge-driven method for model-agnostic rationale evaluation using dedicated test cases, similar to unit-testing in professional software development. We apply this new method in a set of machine learning experiments aimed at extracting known knowledge structures from artificial datasets from fictional and non-fictional legal settings. We show that our method allows us to analyze the rationale of black-box machine learning systems by assessing which rationale elements are learned or not. Furthermore, we show that the rationale can be adjusted using tailor-made training data based on the results of the rationale evaluation.

Related papers

• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Explainable Predictive Process Monitoring: A User Evaluation [62.41400549499849]
  Explainability is motivated by the lack of transparency of black-box Machine Learning approaches. We carry on a user evaluation on explanation approaches for Predictive Process Monitoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T22:24:21Z)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)
• Decision Rule Elicitation for Domain Adaptation [93.02675868486932]
  Human-in-the-loop machine learning is widely used in artificial intelligence (AI) to elicit labels from experts. In this work, we allow experts to additionally produce decision rules describing their decision-making. We show that decision rule elicitation improves domain adaptation of the algorithm and helps to propagate expert's knowledge to the AI model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T08:07:22Z)
• Detecting discriminatory risk through data annotation based on Bayesian inferences [5.017973966200985]
  We propose a method of data annotation that aims to warn about the risk of discriminatory results of a given data set. We empirically test our system on three datasets commonly accessed by the machine learning community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-27T12:43:42Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• How fair can we go in machine learning? Assessing the boundaries of fairness in decision trees [0.12891210250935145]
  We present the first methodology that allows to explore the statistical limits of bias mitigation interventions. We focus our study on decision tree classifiers since they are widely accepted in machine learning. We conclude experimentally that our method can optimize decision tree models by being fairer with a small cost of the classification error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T16:28:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.