Ričards Marcinkevičs^*, Kacper Sokol^*, Akhil Paulraj, Melinda A. Hilbert, Vivien Rimili, Sven Wellmann, Christian Knorr, Bertram Reingruber, Julia E. Vogt^†, Patricia Reis Wolfertstetter^†
* denotes shared first authorship, ^† denotes shared last authorship

medRxiv

29.10.2024

LinkDOI

Despite significant progress, evaluation of explainable artificial intelligence remains elusive and challenging. In this paper we propose a fine-grained validation framework that is not overly reliant on any one facet of these sociotechnical systems, and that recognises their inherent modular structure: technical building blocks, user-facing explanatory artefacts and social communication protocols. While we concur that user studies are invaluable in assessing the quality and effectiveness of explanation presentation and delivery strategies from the explainees' perspective in a particular deployment context, the underlying explanation generation mechanisms require a separate, predominantly algorithmic validation strategy that accounts for the technical and human-centred desiderata of their (numerical) outputs. Such a comprehensive sociotechnical utility-based evaluation framework could allow to systematically reason about the properties and downstream influence of different building blocks from which explainable artificial intelligence systems are composed – accounting for a diverse range of their engineering and social aspects – in view of the anticipated use case.

Kacper Sokol, Julia E. Vogt

Extended Abstracts of the 2024 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

02.05.2024

LinkDOI

Abstract Ante-hoc interpretability has become the holy grail of explainable artificial intelligence for high-stakes domains such as healthcare; however, this notion is elusive, lacks a widely-accepted definition and depends on the operational context. It can refer to predictive models whose structure adheres to domain-specific constraints, or ones that are inherently transparent. The latter conceptualisation assumes observers who judge this quality, whereas the former presupposes them to have technical and domain expertise (thus alienating other groups of explainees). Additionally, the distinction between ante-hoc interpretability and the less desirable post-hoc explainability, which refers to methods that construct a separate explanatory model, is vague given that transparent predictive models may still require (post-)processing to yield suitable explanatory insights. Ante-hoc interpretability is thus an overloaded concept that comprises a range of implicit properties, which we unpack in this paper to better understand what is needed for its safe deployment across high-stakes domains. To this end, we outline modelling and explaining desiderata that allow us to navigate its distinct realisations in view of the envisaged application and audience.

Kacper Sokol, Julia E. Vogt

Workshop on Interpretable ML in Healthcare at 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

28.07.2023

LinkDOI

Counterfactual explanations are the de facto standard when tasked with interpreting decisions of (opaque) predictive models. Their generation is often subject to algorithmic and domain-specific constraints – such as density-based feasibility for the former and attribute (im)mutability or directionality of change for the latter – that aim to maximise their real-life utility. In addition to desiderata with respect to the counterfactual instance itself, the existence of a viable path connecting it with the factual data point, known as algorithmic recourse, has become an important technical consideration. While both of these requirements ensure that the steps of the journey as well as its destination are admissible, current literature neglects the multiplicity of such counterfactual paths. To address this shortcoming we introduce the novel concept of explanatory multiverse that encompasses all the possible counterfactual journeys and shows how to navigate, reason about and compare the geometry of these paths – their affinity, branching, divergence and possible future convergence – with two methods: vector spaces and graphs. Implementing this (interactive) explanatory process grants explainees more agency by allowing them to select counterfactuals based on the properties of the journey leading to them in addition to their absolute differences.

Kacper Sokol, Edward Small, Yueqing Xuan

Workshop on Counterfactuals in Minds and Machines at 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

28.07.2023

LinkDOI