SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Kacper Sokol

Publications and source records attributed to Kacper Sokol.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Diversity-Augmented Negative Sampling for Implicit Collaborative Filtering

Recommenders built upon implicit collaborative filtering are typically trained to distinguish between users' positive and negative preferences. When direct observations of the latter are unavailable, negative training data are constructed with sampling techniques. But since items often exhibit clustering in the latent space, existing methods tend to oversample negatives from dense regions, resulting in homogeneous training data and limited model expressiveness. To address these shortcomings, we propose a novel negative sampler with diversity guarantees. To achieve them, our approach first pairs each positive item of a user with one that they have not yet interacted with; this instance, called hard negative, is chosen as the top-scoring item according to the model. Instead of discarding the remaining highly informative items, we store them in a user-specific cache. Next, our diversity-augmented sampler selects a representative subset of negatives from the cache, ensuring its dissimilarity from the corresponding user's hard negatives. Our generator then combines these items with the hard negatives, replacing them to produce more effective (synthetic) negative training data that are informative and diverse. Experiments show that our method consistently leads to superior recommendation quality without sacrificing computational efficiency.

cs.IR

Artificial Intelligence Should Genuinely Support Clinical Reasoning and Decision Making To Bridge the Translational Gap

Artificial intelligence promises to revolutionise medicine, yet its impact remains limited because of the pervasive translational gap. We posit that the prevailing technology-centric approaches underpin this challenge, rendering such systems fundamentally incompatible with clinical practice, specifically diagnostic reasoning and decision making. Instead, we propose a novel sociotechnical conceptualisation of data-driven support tools designed to complement doctors' cognitive and epistemic activities. Crucially, it prioritises real-world impact over superhuman performance on inconsequential benchmarks.

cs.HC

Leveraging Complementary AI Explanations to Mitigate Misunderstanding in XAI

Artificial intelligence explanations can make complex predictive models more comprehensible. To be effective, however, they should anticipate and mitigate possible misinterpretations, e.g., arising when users infer incorrect information that is not explicitly conveyed. To this end, we propose complementary explanations -- a novel method that pairs explanations to compensate for their respective limitations. A complementary explanation adds insights that clarify potential misconceptions stemming from the primary explanation while ensuring their coherency and avoiding redundancy. We introduce a framework for designing and evaluating complementary explanation pairs based on pertinent qualitative properties and quantitative metrics. Our approach allows to construct complementary explanations that minimise the chance of their misinterpretation.

cs.HC

Uncertainty Quantification as a Principled Foundation for Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Case Study of Counterfactual Explanations

In this paper we argue that, to its detriment, transparency research overlooks many foundational concepts of artificial intelligence. As an illustrating example we focus on uncertainty quantification in the context of counterfactual explainability, demonstrating that its broader adoption could address key challenges in the field. To this end, we show how uncertainty can provide a principled unifying framework for counterfactual explainability by expressing the core counterfactual properties in terms of uncertainty, allowing us to build two variants of an explainer upon them -- one based solely on uncertainty estimates and another pairing them with distance measured in the feature space. Our comprehensive experiments illustrate highly competitive performance of our framework when compared to many state-of-the-art methods despite its radically simple design. More broadly, the paper demonstrates that integrating artificial intelligence fundamentals into transparency research promises to yield more reliable, robust and understandable predictive models. We posit that making artificial intelligence explainability truly uncertainty-aware is the first step towards this goal.

cs.LG

Perfect Counterfactuals in Imperfect Worlds: Modelling Noisy Implementation of Actions in Sequential Algorithmic Recourse

Algorithmic recourse suggests actions to individuals who have been adversely affected by automated decision-making, helping them to achieve the desired outcome. Knowing the recourse, however, does not guarantee that users can implement it perfectly, either due to environmental variability or personal choices. Recourse generation should thus anticipate its sub-optimal or noisy implementation. While several approaches construct recourse that is robust to small perturbations -- e.g., arising due to its noisy implementation -- they assume that the entire recourse is implemented in a single step, thus model the noise as one-off and uniform. But these assumptions are unrealistic since recourse often entails multiple sequential steps, which makes it harder to implement and subject to increasing noise. In this work, we consider recourse under plausible noise that adheres to the local data geometry and accumulates at every step of the way. We frame this problem as a Markov Decision Process and demonstrate that such a distribution of plausible noise satisfies the Markov property. We then propose the RObust SEquential (ROSE) recourse generator for tabular data; our method produces a series of steps leading to the desired outcome even when they are implemented imperfectly. Given plausible modelling of sub-optimal human actions and greater recourse robustness to accumulated uncertainty, ROSE provides users with a high chance of success while maintaining low recourse cost. Empirical evaluation shows that our algorithm effectively navigates the inherent trade-off between recourse robustness and cost while ensuring its sparsity and computational efficiency.

cs.LG

Counterfactual Explanations for Clustering Models

Clustering algorithms rely on complex optimisation processes that may be difficult to comprehend, especially for individuals who lack technical expertise. While many explainable artificial intelligence techniques exist for supervised machine learning, unsupervised learning -- and clustering in particular -- has been largely neglected. To complicate matters further, the notion of a ``true'' cluster is inherently challenging to define. These facets of unsupervised learning and its explainability make it difficult to foster trust in such methods and curtail their adoption. To address these challenges, we propose a new, model-agnostic technique for explaining clustering algorithms with counterfactual statements. Our approach relies on a novel soft-scoring method that captures the spatial information utilised by clustering models. It builds upon a state-of-the-art Bayesian counterfactual generator for supervised learning to deliver high-quality explanations. We evaluate its performance on five datasets and two clustering algorithms, and demonstrate that introducing soft scores to guide counterfactual search significantly improves the results.

cs.LG

How Robust is your Fair Model? Exploring the Robustness of Diverse Fairness Strategies

With the introduction of machine learning in high-stakes decision making, ensuring algorithmic fairness has become an increasingly important problem to solve. In response to this, many mathematical definitions of fairness have been proposed, and a variety of optimisation techniques have been developed, all designed to maximise a defined notion of fairness. However, fair solutions are reliant on the quality of the training data, and can be highly sensitive to noise. Recent studies have shown that robustness (the ability for a model to perform well on unseen data) plays a significant role in the type of strategy that should be used when approaching a new problem and, hence, measuring the robustness of these strategies has become a fundamental problem. In this work, we therefore propose a new criterion to measure the robustness of various fairness optimisation strategies - the robustness ratio. We conduct multiple extensive experiments on five bench mark fairness data sets using three of the most popular fairness strategies with respect to four of the most popular definitions of fairness. Our experiments empirically show that fairness methods that rely on threshold optimisation are very sensitive to noise in all the evaluated data sets, despite mostly outperforming other methods. This is in contrast to the other two methods, which are less fair for low noise scenarios but fairer for high noise ones. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to quantitatively evaluate the robustness of fairness optimisation strategies. This can potentially can serve as a guideline in choosing the most suitable fairness strategy for various data sets.

cs.LG

Interpretable Representations in Explainable AI: From Theory to Practice

Interpretable representations are the backbone of many explainers that target black-box predictive systems based on artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. They translate the low-level data representation necessary for good predictive performance into high-level human-intelligible concepts used to convey the explanatory insights. Notably, the explanation type and its cognitive complexity are directly controlled by the interpretable representation, tweaking which allows to target a particular audience and use case. However, many explainers built upon interpretable representations overlook their merit and fall back on default solutions that often carry implicit assumptions, thereby degrading the explanatory power and reliability of such techniques. To address this problem, we study properties of interpretable representations that encode presence and absence of human-comprehensible concepts. We demonstrate how they are operationalised for tabular, image and text data; discuss their assumptions, strengths and weaknesses; identify their core building blocks; and scrutinise their configuration and parameterisation. In particular, this in-depth analysis allows us to pinpoint their explanatory properties, desiderata and scope for (malicious) manipulation in the context of tabular data where a linear model is used to quantify the influence of interpretable concepts on a black-box prediction. Our findings lead to a range of recommendations for designing trustworthy interpretable representations; specifically, the benefits of class-aware (supervised) discretisation of tabular data, e.g., with decision trees, and sensitivity of image interpretable representations to segmentation granularity and occlusion colour.

cs.LG

Equalised Odds is not Equal Individual Odds: Post-processing for Group and Individual Fairness

Group fairness is achieved by equalising prediction distributions between protected sub-populations; individual fairness requires treating similar individuals alike. These two objectives, however, are incompatible when a scoring model is calibrated through discontinuous probability functions, where individuals can be randomly assigned an outcome determined by a fixed probability. This procedure may provide two similar individuals from the same protected group with classification odds that are disparately different -- a clear violation of individual fairness. Assigning unique odds to each protected sub-population may also prevent members of one sub-population from ever receiving equal chances of a positive outcome to another, which we argue is another type of unfairness called individual odds. We reconcile all this by constructing continuous probability functions between group thresholds that are constrained by their Lipschitz constant. Our solution preserves the model's predictive power, individual fairness and robustness while ensuring group fairness.

cs.LG

What Does Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence Actually Tell Us? A Case for Compositional and Contextual Validation of XAI Building Blocks

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.

cs.HC

Comprehension Is a Double-Edged Sword: Over-Interpreting Unspecified Information in Intelligible Machine Learning Explanations

Automated decision-making systems are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, which creates an immediate need for their interpretability and explainability. However, it remains unclear whether users know what insights an explanation offers and, more importantly, what information it lacks. To answer this question we conducted an online study with 200 participants, which allowed us to assess explainees' ability to realise explicated information -- i.e., factual insights conveyed by an explanation -- and unspecified information -- i.e, insights that are not communicated by an explanation -- across four representative explanation types: model architecture, decision surface visualisation, counterfactual explainability and feature importance. Our findings uncover that highly comprehensible explanations, e.g., feature importance and decision surface visualisation, are exceptionally susceptible to misinterpretation since users tend to infer spurious information that is outside of the scope of these explanations. Additionally, while the users gauge their confidence accurately with respect to the information explicated by these explanations, they tend to be overconfident when misinterpreting the explanations. Our work demonstrates that human comprehension can be a double-edged sword since highly accessible explanations may convince users of their truthfulness while possibly leading to various misinterpretations at the same time. Machine learning explanations should therefore carefully navigate the complex relation between their full scope and limitations to maximise understanding and curb misinterpretation.

cs.HC

Counterfactual Explanations via Locally-guided Sequential Algorithmic Recourse

Counterfactuals operationalised through algorithmic recourse have become a powerful tool to make artificial intelligence systems explainable. Conceptually, given an individual classified as y -- the factual -- we seek actions such that their prediction becomes the desired class y' -- the counterfactual. This process offers algorithmic recourse that is (1) easy to customise and interpret, and (2) directly aligned with the goals of each individual. However, the properties of a "good" counterfactual are still largely debated; it remains an open challenge to effectively locate a counterfactual along with its corresponding recourse. Some strategies use gradient-driven methods, but these offer no guarantees on the feasibility of the recourse and are open to adversarial attacks on carefully created manifolds. This can lead to unfairness and lack of robustness. Other methods are data-driven, which mostly addresses the feasibility problem at the expense of privacy, security and secrecy as they require access to the entire training data set. Here, we introduce LocalFACE, a model-agnostic technique that composes feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations using locally-acquired information at each step of the algorithmic recourse. Our explainer preserves the privacy of users by only leveraging data that it specifically requires to construct actionable algorithmic recourse, and protects the model by offering transparency solely in the regions deemed necessary for the intervention.

cs.LG

(Un)reasonable Allure of Ante-hoc Interpretability for High-stakes Domains: Transparency Is Necessary but Insufficient for Comprehensibility

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 adoption 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.

cs.LG

Navigating Explanatory Multiverse Through Counterfactual Path Geometry

Counterfactual explanations are the de facto standard when tasked with interpreting decisions of (opaque) predictive models. Their generation is often subject to technical and domain-specific constraints that aim to maximise their real-life utility. In addition to considering desiderata pertaining to the counterfactual instance itself, guaranteeing existence of a viable path connecting it with the factual data point has recently gained relevance. While current explainability approaches ensure that the steps of such a journey as well as its destination adhere to selected constraints, they neglect the multiplicity of these counterfactual paths. To address this shortcoming we introduce the novel concept of explanatory multiverse that encompasses all the possible counterfactual journeys. We define it using vector spaces, showing how to navigate, reason about and compare the geometry of counterfactual trajectories found within it. To this end, we overview their spatial properties -- such as affinity, branching, divergence and possible future convergence -- and propose an all-in-one metric, called opportunity potential, to quantify them. Notably, the explanatory process offered by our method grants explainees more agency by allowing them to select counterfactuals not only based on their absolute differences but also according to the properties of their connecting paths. To demonstrate real-life flexibility, benefit and efficacy of explanatory multiverse we propose its graph-based implementation, which we use for qualitative and quantitative evaluation on six tabular and image data sets.

cs.LG

Helpful, Misleading or Confusing: How Humans Perceive Fundamental Building Blocks of Artificial Intelligence Explanations

Explainable artificial intelligence techniques are developed at breakneck speed, but suitable evaluation approaches lag behind. With explainers becoming increasingly complex and a lack of consensus on how to assess their utility, it is challenging to judge the benefit and effectiveness of different explanations. To address this gap, we take a step back from sophisticated predictive algorithms and instead look into explainability of simple decision-making models. In this setting, we aim to assess how people perceive comprehensibility of their different representations such as mathematical formulation, graphical representation and textual summarisation (of varying complexity and scope). This allows us to capture how diverse stakeholders -- engineers, researchers, consumers, regulators and the like -- judge intelligibility of fundamental concepts that more elaborate artificial intelligence explanations are built from. This position paper charts our approach to establishing appropriate evaluation methodology as well as a conceptual and practical framework to facilitate setting up and executing relevant user studies.

cs.HC

Evaluating and Addressing Fairness Across User Groups in Negative Sampling for Recommender Systems

Recommender systems trained on implicit feedback data rely on negative sampling to distinguish positive items from negative items for each user. Since the majority of positive interactions come from a small group of active users, negative samplers are often impacted by data imbalance, leading them to choose more informative negatives for prominent users while providing less useful ones for users who are not so active. This leads to inactive users being further marginalised in the training process, thus receiving inferior recommendations. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study demonstrating that state-of-the-art negative sampling strategies provide more accurate recommendations for active users than for inactive users. We also find that increasing the number of negative samples for each positive item improves the average performance, but the benefit is distributed unequally across user groups, with active users experiencing performance gain while inactive users suffering performance degradation. To address this, we propose a group-specific negative sampling strategy that assigns smaller negative ratios to inactive user groups and larger ratios to active groups. Experiments on eight negative samplers show that our approach improves user-side fairness and performance when compared to a uniform global ratio.

cs.IR

Mind the Gap! Bridging Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Human Understanding with Luhmann's Functional Theory of Communication

Over the past decade explainable artificial intelligence has evolved from a predominantly technical discipline into a field that is deeply intertwined with social sciences. Insights such as human preference for contrastive -- more precisely, counterfactual -- explanations have played a major role in this transition, inspiring and guiding the research in computer science. Other observations, while equally important, have nevertheless received much less consideration. The desire of human explainees to communicate with artificial intelligence explainers through a dialogue-like interaction has been mostly neglected by the community. This poses many challenges for the effectiveness and widespread adoption of such technologies as delivering a single explanation optimised according to some predefined objectives may fail to engender understanding in its recipients and satisfy their unique needs given the diversity of human knowledge and intention. Using insights elaborated by Niklas Luhmann and, more recently, Elena Esposito we apply social systems theory to highlight challenges in explainable artificial intelligence and offer a path forward, striving to reinvigorate the technical research in the direction of interactive and iterative explainers. Specifically, this paper demonstrates the potential of systems theoretical approaches to communication in elucidating and addressing the problems and limitations of human-centred explainable artificial intelligence.

cs.CY

Analysing Donors' Behaviour in Non-profit Organisations for Disaster Resilience: The 2019--2020 Australian Bushfires Case Study

With the advancement and proliferation of technology, non-profit organisations have embraced social media platforms to improve their operational capabilities through brand advocacy, among many other strategies. The effect of such social media campaigns on these institutions, however, remains largely underexplored, especially during disaster periods. This work introduces and applies a quantitative investigative framework to understand how social media influence the behaviour of donors and their usage of these platforms throughout (natural) disasters. More specifically, we explore how on-line engagement -- as captured by Facebook interactions and Google search trends -- corresponds to the donors' behaviour during the catastrophic 2019--2020 Australian bushfire season. To discover this relationship, we analyse the record of donations made to the Australian Red Cross throughout this period. Our exploratory study reveals that social media campaigns are effective in encouraging on-line donations made via a dedicated website. We also compare this mode of giving to more regular, direct deposit gifting.

cs.CY