On the Trade-offs between Adversarial Robustness and Actionable Explanations

Overview

• This paper explores the trade-offs between making machine learning models adversarially robust and generating actionable explanations for their decisions.
• Adversarial robustness refers to a model's ability to maintain accurate predictions even when inputs are perturbed with small, imperceptible changes.
• Actionable explanations are explanations that provide users with concrete steps they can take to influence a model's output.
• The authors find that improving a model's adversarial robustness can reduce the quality and actionability of its explanations.

Plain English Explanation

Machine learning models are increasingly being used to make important decisions, such as loan approvals or medical diagnoses. As a result, it's crucial that these models are robust to adversarial attacks - that is, they should maintain accurate predictions even when the input data is subtly manipulated in a way that's hard for humans to detect.

At the same time, it's important for these models to provide actionable explanations - explanations that give users concrete steps they can take to influence the model's output. For example, an explanation for a loan denial might suggest ways the applicant can improve their credit score.

This paper explores the tension between these two desirable properties. The authors find that as you make a model more adversarially robust, the quality and actionability of its explanations tends to decrease. In other words, there's a trade-off between robustness and explainability.

This is an important finding because it suggests that we can't always have the best of both worlds. Developers of high-stakes AI systems will need to carefully balance these competing priorities based on their specific use case and requirements.

Technical Explanation

The authors formalize the notion of "actionable explanations" as a model's ability to provide users with concrete steps they can take to change the model's output. They propose a framework for quantifying the actionability of explanations based on the minimum required change to the input that would result in a different model prediction.

Using this framework, the authors empirically investigate the relationship between a model's adversarial robustness and the actionability of its explanations. They consider two popular adversarial training methods - PGD and PerturB - and evaluate the explanations produced by these models on benchmark datasets.

Their results show that as a model becomes more adversarially robust, the actionability of its explanations decreases. The authors hypothesize that this is because robust models learn to rely on more global, high-level features rather than the local, low-level features that are more amenable to actionable changes.

The authors also discuss several other factors that can influence the trade-off between robustness and explainability, such as the specific explanation method used and the inherent complexity of the problem domain.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a rigorous, empirical investigation of an important and under-explored trade-off in AI system design. The authors' framework for quantifying actionable explanations is a novel contribution that could be useful for future research in this area.

However, the study is limited to a specific set of benchmarks and adversarial training methods. It would be valuable to see the analysis extended to a broader range of model architectures, explanation techniques, and real-world applications to test the generalizability of the findings.

Additionally, the paper does not provide much insight into the underlying reasons for the observed trade-off. Further research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms driving the relationship between robustness and explainability.

Finally, the authors acknowledge that their work assumes a specific notion of actionability. Other definitions or metrics of explanation quality may lead to different conclusions about the trade-off.

Conclusion

This paper highlights a fundamental tension between two highly desirable properties of AI systems: adversarial robustness and actionable explanations. The authors demonstrate that as models become more robust to adversarial attacks, the quality and actionability of their explanations tends to decrease.

This finding is significant because it suggests that developers of high-stakes AI systems will need to carefully balance these competing priorities based on their specific use case and requirements. The paper provides a valuable framework for quantifying this trade-off, which can inform future research and the development of more transparent and trustworthy AI systems.