Can Explainable AI Explain Unfairness? A Framework for Evaluating
Explainable AI
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07483v1
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:14:03 GMT
- Title: Can Explainable AI Explain Unfairness? A Framework for Evaluating
Explainable AI
- Authors: Kiana Alikhademi, Brianna Richardson, Emma Drobina, and Juan E.
Gilbert
- Abstract summary: Despite XAI tools' strength in translating model behavior, critiques have raised concerns about the impact of XAI tools as a tool for fairwashing
We created a framework for evaluating explainable AI tools with respect to their capabilities for detecting and addressing issues of bias and fairness.
We found that despite their capabilities in simplifying and explaining model behavior, many prominent XAI tools lack features that could be critical in detecting bias.
- Score: 3.4823710414760516
- License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
- Abstract: Many ML models are opaque to humans, producing decisions too complex for
humans to easily understand. In response, explainable artificial intelligence
(XAI) tools that analyze the inner workings of a model have been created.
Despite these tools' strength in translating model behavior, critiques have
raised concerns about the impact of XAI tools as a tool for `fairwashing` by
misleading users into trusting biased or incorrect models. In this paper, we
created a framework for evaluating explainable AI tools with respect to their
capabilities for detecting and addressing issues of bias and fairness as well
as their capacity to communicate these results to their users clearly. We found
that despite their capabilities in simplifying and explaining model behavior,
many prominent XAI tools lack features that could be critical in detecting
bias. Developers can use our framework to suggest modifications needed in their
toolkits to reduce issues likes fairwashing.
Related papers
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Accurate Fault Detection and Diagnosis: A Review [0.0]
We review the eXplainable AI (XAI) tools and techniques in this context.
We focus on their role in making AI decision-making transparent, particularly in critical scenarios where humans are involved.
We discuss current limitations and potential future research that aims to balance explainability with model performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-17T17:49:38Z) - Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development.
To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps.
These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z) - Does Your Model Think Like an Engineer? Explainable AI for Bearing Fault
Detection with Deep Learning [20.488966890562004]
In this work, we focus on the specific task of detecting faults in rolling element bearings from vibration signals.
We propose a novel and domain-specific feature attribution framework that allows us to evaluate how well the underlying logic of a model corresponds with expert reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-19T17:58:11Z) - Towards Reconciling Usability and Usefulness of Explainable AI
Methodologies [2.715884199292287]
Black-box AI systems can lead to liability and accountability issues when they produce an incorrect decision.
Explainable AI (XAI) seeks to bridge the knowledge gap, between developers and end-users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-13T01:08:49Z) - Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps.
We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches.
We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z) - Responsibility: An Example-based Explainable AI approach via Training
Process Inspection [1.4610038284393165]
We present a novel XAI approach that identifies the most responsible training example for a particular decision.
This example can then be shown as an explanation: "this is what I (the AI) learned that led me to do that"
Our results demonstrate that responsibility can help improve accuracy for both human end users and secondary ML models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-07T19:30:01Z) - Beyond Explaining: Opportunities and Challenges of XAI-Based Model
Improvement [75.00655434905417]
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is an emerging research field bringing transparency to highly complex machine learning (ML) models.
This paper offers a comprehensive overview over techniques that apply XAI practically for improving various properties of ML models.
We show empirically through experiments on toy and realistic settings how explanations can help improve properties such as model generalization ability or reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-15T15:44:28Z) - AI Explainability 360: Impact and Design [120.95633114160688]
In 2019, we created AI Explainability 360 (Arya et al. 2020), an open source software toolkit featuring ten diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods.
This paper examines the impact of the toolkit with several case studies, statistics, and community feedback.
The paper also describes the flexible design of the toolkit, examples of its use, and the significant educational material and documentation available to its users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-24T19:17:09Z) - Explainability in Deep Reinforcement Learning [68.8204255655161]
We review recent works in the direction to attain Explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL)
In critical situations where it is essential to justify and explain the agent's behaviour, better explainability and interpretability of RL models could help gain scientific insight on the inner workings of what is still considered a black box.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-15T10:11:42Z) - Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local
Explanations Impact Annotator Experience [76.9910678786031]
We propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an Active Learning setting.
Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-24T22:52:18Z) - Deceptive AI Explanations: Creation and Detection [3.197020142231916]
We investigate how AI models can be used to create and detect deceptive explanations.
As an empirical evaluation, we focus on text classification and alter the explanations generated by GradCAM.
We evaluate the effect of deceptive explanations on users in an experiment with 200 participants.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-21T16:41:22Z)
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.