Causal Explanations and XAI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.13169v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:32:10 GMT
• Title: Causal Explanations and XAI
• Authors: Sander Beckers
• Abstract summary: An important goal of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to compensate for mismatches by offering explanations. I take a step further by formally defining the causal notions of sufficient explanations and counterfactual explanations. I also touch upon the significance of this work for fairness in AI by showing how actual causation can be used to improve the idea of path-specific counterfactual fairness.
• Score: 8.909115457491522
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Although standard Machine Learning models are optimized for making predictions about observations, more and more they are used for making predictions about the results of actions. An important goal of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to compensate for this mismatch by offering explanations about the predictions of an ML-model which ensure that they are reliably action-guiding. As action-guiding explanations are causal explanations, the literature on this topic is starting to embrace insights from the literature on causal models. Here I take a step further down this path by formally defining the causal notions of sufficient explanations and counterfactual explanations. I show how these notions relate to (and improve upon) existing work, and motivate their adequacy by illustrating how different explanations are action-guiding under different circumstances. Moreover, this work is the first to offer a formal definition of actual causation that is founded entirely in action-guiding explanations. Although the definitions are motivated by a focus on XAI, the analysis of causal explanation and actual causation applies in general. I also touch upon the significance of this work for fairness in AI by showing how actual causation can be used to improve the idea of path-specific counterfactual fairness.

Related papers

• Dissenting Explanations: Leveraging Disagreement to Reduce Model Overreliance [4.962171160815189]
  We introduce the notion of dissenting explanations: conflicting predictions with accompanying explanations. We first explore the advantage of dissenting explanations in the setting of model multiplicity. We demonstrate that dissenting explanations reduce overreliance on model predictions, without reducing overall accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T21:27:00Z)
• Abductive Commonsense Reasoning Exploiting Mutually Exclusive Explanations [118.0818807474809]
  Abductive reasoning aims to find plausible explanations for an event. Existing approaches for abductive reasoning in natural language processing often rely on manually generated annotations for supervision. This work proposes an approach for abductive commonsense reasoning that exploits the fact that only a subset of explanations is correct for a given context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:35:10Z)
• CLEAR: Generative Counterfactual Explanations on Graphs [60.30009215290265]
  We study the problem of counterfactual explanation generation on graphs. A few studies have explored counterfactual explanations on graphs, but many challenges of this problem are still not well-addressed. We propose a novel framework CLEAR which aims to generate counterfactual explanations on graphs for graph-level prediction models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-16T04:35:32Z)
• Eliminating The Impossible, Whatever Remains Must Be True [46.39428193548396]
  We show how one can apply background knowledge to give more succinct "why" formal explanations. We also show how to use existing rule induction techniques to efficiently extract background information from a dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-20T03:18:14Z)
• Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate Reinforcement [15.947501347927687]
  We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models. The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds. We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T19:39:51Z)
• Visual Abductive Reasoning [85.17040703205608]
  Abductive reasoning seeks the likeliest possible explanation for partial observations. We propose a new task and dataset, Visual Abductive Reasoning ( VAR), for examining abductive reasoning ability of machine intelligence in everyday visual situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-26T10:17:03Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)
• Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attribution [58.13152510843004]
  We find that the requirement of model interpretations to be faithful is vague and incomplete. We identify that the problem is a misalignment between the causal chain of decisions (causal attribution) and the attribution of human behavior to the interpretation (social attribution)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-01T16:45:38Z)
• Order Matters: Generating Progressive Explanations for Planning Tasks in Human-Robot Teaming [11.35869940310993]
  We aim to investigate effects during explanation generation when an explanation is broken into multiple parts that are communicated sequentially. We first evaluate our approach on a scavenger-hunt domain to demonstrate its effectively capturing the humans' preferences. Results confirmed our hypothesis that the process of understanding an explanation was a dynamic process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-16T00:17:02Z)

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.