A multi-criteria approach for selecting an explanation from the set of counterfactuals produced by an ensemble of explainers
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a multi-criteria approach to selecting the most appropriate counterfactual explanation from a set of explanations produced by an ensemble of explainers.
- The goal is to provide users with a more nuanced and personalized explanation that better meets their needs.
- The approach considers factors like minimality, sparsity, and plausibility to identify the most suitable counterfactual.
Plain English Explanation
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated, but they can also be complex and opaque. When these systems make decisions, it's important to be able to understand how and why they reached that conclusion. This is where counterfactual explanations come in.
Counterfactual explanations show what changes would need to be made to the input for the AI system to produce a different output. For example, if an AI system denies a loan application, the counterfactual explanation might say "If your income was $5,000 higher, your application would have been approved."
The challenge is that there can be many possible counterfactual explanations for a single decision. This paper proposes a way to select the most appropriate counterfactual from a set of explanations produced by multiple AI explainers (models that generate counterfactuals).
The key idea is to consider multiple criteria, such as:
- Minimality: The explanation should make the fewest changes to the original input.
- Sparsity: The explanation should focus on the most important features.
- Plausibility: The changes suggested should be realistic and achievable for the user.
By taking these factors into account, the system can identify the counterfactual that best meets the user's needs and provides the most helpful and relevant explanation.
This approach allows for more personalized and nuanced explanations, which can be particularly important in high-stakes decisions like loan approvals or medical diagnoses. By empowering users to better understand AI decisions, the research aims to improve transparency and build trust in these systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a multi-criteria approach for selecting an explanation from the set of counterfactuals produced by an ensemble of explainers. The key steps are:
-
Generate counterfactuals: The authors use an ensemble of different explainer models (e.g., LIME, SHAP, CEM) to generate a set of candidate counterfactual explanations for a given AI system's prediction.
-
Define evaluation criteria: The authors define three main criteria to evaluate the counterfactuals:
- Minimality: The counterfactual should make the fewest changes to the original input.
- Sparsity: The counterfactual should focus on the most important features.
- Plausibility: The changes suggested should be realistic and achievable for the user.
-
Rank and select: The authors then use a ranking function to score each counterfactual based on these criteria and select the one with the highest overall score as the final explanation.
The authors evaluate their approach on several benchmark datasets and find that it outperforms single-explainer approaches in terms of providing more meaningful and personalized explanations.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a promising approach to improving the selection of counterfactual explanations, which can be an important step in making AI systems more transparent and trustworthy.
One potential limitation is that the approach relies on the quality and diversity of the initial set of counterfactuals generated by the ensemble of explainers. If the explainers fail to produce a sufficiently wide range of relevant counterfactuals, the final selection may still be suboptimal.
Additionally, the weighting of the different evaluation criteria (minimality, sparsity, plausibility) could have a significant impact on the selected counterfactual. The authors acknowledge this and suggest that the weights could be personalized based on user preferences, but more research may be needed to understand the implications of different weighting schemes.
Another area for further exploration is the scalability of the approach, as the ranking and selection process may become computationally expensive as the number of candidate counterfactuals grows. Developing more efficient algorithms or approximation techniques could be an important next step.
Overall, the research represents a valuable contribution to the field of explainable AI, and the multi-criteria approach could be a useful tool for improving the transparency and interpretability of AI-driven decisions.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel approach to selecting the most appropriate counterfactual explanation from a set of candidate explanations generated by an ensemble of AI explainers. By considering factors like minimality, sparsity, and plausibility, the system can identify the counterfactual that best meets the user's needs and provides a more personalized and helpful explanation.
The research highlights the importance of transparency and interpretability in AI systems, particularly in high-stakes decision-making contexts. By empowering users to better understand the reasoning behind AI decisions, the proposed approach aims to build trust and improve the overall user experience.
While the paper presents promising results, there are also opportunities for further research, such as exploring the impact of different weighting schemes for the evaluation criteria and investigating ways to improve the scalability of the approach. Nevertheless, the multi-criteria selection method represents a valuable contribution to the field of explainable AI and a step towards more meaningful and personalized explanations of AI-driven decisions.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
A multi-criteria approach for selecting an explanation from the set of counterfactuals produced by an ensemble of explainers
Ignacy Stk{e}pka, Mateusz Lango, Jerzy Stefanowski
Counterfactuals are widely used to explain ML model predictions by providing alternative scenarios for obtaining the more desired predictions. They can be generated by a variety of methods that optimize different, sometimes conflicting, quality measures and produce quite different solutions. However, choosing the most appropriate explanation method and one of the generated counterfactuals is not an easy task. Instead of forcing the user to test many different explanation methods and analysing conflicting solutions, in this paper, we propose to use a multi-stage ensemble approach that will select single counterfactual based on the multiple-criteria analysis. It offers a compromise solution that scores well on several popular quality measures. This approach exploits the dominance relation and the ideal point decision aid method, which selects one counterfactual from the Pareto front. The conducted experiments demonstrated that the proposed approach generates fully actionable counterfactuals with attractive compromise values of the considered quality measures.
Read more8/6/2024
🔍
0
A Two-Stage Algorithm for Cost-Efficient Multi-instance Counterfactual Explanations
Andr'e Artelt, Andreas Gregoriades
Counterfactual explanations constitute among the most popular methods for analyzing black-box systems since they can recommend cost-efficient and actionable changes to the input of a system to obtain the desired system output. While most of the existing counterfactual methods explain a single instance, several real-world problems, such as customer satisfaction, require the identification of a single counterfactual that can satisfy multiple instances (e.g. customers) simultaneously. To address this limitation, in this work, we propose a flexible two-stage algorithm for finding groups of instances and computing cost-efficient multi-instance counterfactual explanations. The paper presents the algorithm and its performance against popular alternatives through a comparative evaluation.
Read more5/22/2024
0
An effect analysis of the balancing techniques on the counterfactual explanations of student success prediction models
Mustafa Cavus, Jakub Kuzilek
In the past decade, we have experienced a massive boom in the usage of digital solutions in higher education. Due to this boom, large amounts of data have enabled advanced data analysis methods to support learners and examine learning processes. One of the dominant research directions in learning analytics is predictive modeling of learners' success using various machine learning methods. To build learners' and teachers' trust in such methods and systems, exploring the methods and methodologies that enable relevant stakeholders to deeply understand the underlying machine-learning models is necessary. In this context, counterfactual explanations from explainable machine learning tools are promising. Several counterfactual generation methods hold much promise, but the features must be actionable and causal to be effective. Thus, obtaining which counterfactual generation method suits the student success prediction models in terms of desiderata, stability, and robustness is essential. Although a few studies have been published in recent years on the use of counterfactual explanations in educational sciences, they have yet to discuss which counterfactual generation method is more suitable for this problem. This paper analyzed the effectiveness of commonly used counterfactual generation methods, such as WhatIf Counterfactual Explanations, Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanations, and Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanations after balancing. This contribution presents a case study using the Open University Learning Analytics dataset to demonstrate the practical usefulness of counterfactual explanations. The results illustrate the method's effectiveness and describe concrete steps that could be taken to alter the model's prediction.
Read more8/2/2024
0
Using LLMs for Explaining Sets of Counterfactual Examples to Final Users
Arturo Fredes, Jordi Vitria
Causality is vital for understanding true cause-and-effect relationships between variables within predictive models, rather than relying on mere correlations, making it highly relevant in the field of Explainable AI. In an automated decision-making scenario, causal inference methods can analyze the underlying data-generation process, enabling explanations of a model's decision by manipulating features and creating counterfactual examples. These counterfactuals explore hypothetical scenarios where a minimal number of factors are altered, providing end-users with valuable information on how to change their situation. However, interpreting a set of multiple counterfactuals can be challenging for end-users who are not used to analyzing raw data records. In our work, we propose a novel multi-step pipeline that uses counterfactuals to generate natural language explanations of actions that will lead to a change in outcome in classifiers of tabular data using LLMs. This pipeline is designed to guide the LLM through smaller tasks that mimic human reasoning when explaining a decision based on counterfactual cases. We conducted various experiments using a public dataset and proposed a method of closed-loop evaluation to assess the coherence of the final explanation with the counterfactuals, as well as the quality of the content. Results are promising, although further experiments with other datasets and human evaluations should be carried out.
Read more8/28/2024