Explainable Decision Making with Lean and Argumentative Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06692v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:29:02 GMT
• Title: Explainable Decision Making with Lean and Argumentative Explanations
• Authors: Xiuyi Fan, Francesca Toni
• Abstract summary: We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness," explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences.
• Score: 11.644036228274176
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achieving this transparency. We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives (i) meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness" (corresponding to a number of existing notions in the literature), explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences: lean explanations, in terms of goals satisfied and, for some notions of "goodness", alternative decisions, and argumentative explanations, reflecting the decision process leading to the selection, while corresponding to the lean explanations. To define argumentative explanations, we use assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-known form of structured argumentation. Specifically, we define ABA frameworks such that "good" decisions are admissible ABA arguments and draw argumentative explanations from dispute trees sanctioning this admissibility. Finally, we instantiate our overall framework for explainable decision-making to accommodate connections between goals and decisions in terms of decision graphs incorporating defeasible and non-defeasible information.

Related papers

• Enhancing Language Model Rationality with Bi-Directional Deliberation Reasoning [73.77288647011295]
  This paper introduces BI-Directional DEliberation Reasoning (BIDDER) to enhance the decision rationality of language models. Our approach involves three key processes:. Inferring hidden states to represent uncertain information in the decision-making process from historical data;. Using hidden states to predict future potential states and potential outcomes;. Integrating historical information (past contexts) and long-term outcomes (future contexts) to inform reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T16:48:48Z)
• Stakeholder-in-the-Loop Fair Decisions: A Framework to Design Decision Support Systems in Public and Private Organizations [0.0]
  We propose a discussion framework that we call "stakeholder-in-the-loop fair decisions" We identify four stakeholders that need to be considered to design accountable decision support systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T14:07:58Z)
• Explainable Data-Driven Optimization: From Context to Decision and Back Again [76.84947521482631]
  Data-driven optimization uses contextual information and machine learning algorithms to find solutions to decision problems with uncertain parameters. We introduce a counterfactual explanation methodology tailored to explain solutions to data-driven problems. We demonstrate our approach by explaining key problems in operations management such as inventory management and routing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T15:25:16Z)
• Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making [0.0]
  Explanations help to facilitate communication between the algorithm and the human decision-maker. Feature-based explanations' semantics of causal models induce leakage from the decision-maker's prior beliefs. Such differences can lead to sub-optimal and biased decision outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T11:43:42Z)
• A Justice-Based Framework for the Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness-Utility Trade-Offs [0.0]
  In prediction-based decision-making systems, different perspectives can be at odds. The short-term business goals of the decision makers are often in conflict with the decision subjects' wish to be treated fairly. We propose a framework to make these value-laden choices clearly visible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T20:31:55Z)
• Decision-making with E-admissibility given a finite assessment of choices [64.29961886833972]
  We study the implications for decision-making with E-admissibility. We use the mathematical framework of choice functions to specify choices and rejections. We provide an algorithm that computes this extension by solving linear feasibility problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-15T11:46:00Z)
• Legal perspective on possible fairness measures - A legal discussion using the example of hiring decisions (preprint) [0.0]
  We explain the different kinds of fairness concepts that might be applicable for the specific application of hiring decisions. We analyze their pros and cons with regard to the respective fairness interpretation and evaluate them from a legal perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T06:41:39Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• "A cold, technical decision-maker": Can AI provide explainability, negotiability, and humanity? [47.36687555570123]
  We present results of a qualitative study of algorithmic decision-making, comprised of five workshops conducted with a total of 60 participants. We discuss participants' consideration of humanity in decision-making, and introduce the concept of 'negotiability,' the ability to go beyond formal criteria and work flexibly around the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T22:36:54Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)
• Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach [11.871523410051527]
  We consider an explanation as a set of the system's data inputs that causally drives the decision. We show that features that have a large importance weight for a model prediction may not affect the corresponding decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-21T09:58:58Z)

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.