Financial decisions impact our lives, and thus everyone from the regulator to the consumer is interested in fair, sound, and explainable decisions. There is increasing competitive desire and regulatory incentive to deploy AI mindfully within financial services. An important mechanism towards that end is to explain AI decisions to various stakeholders. State-of-the-art explainable AI systems mostly serve AI engineers and offer little to no value to business decision makers, customers, and other stakeholders. Towards addressing this gap, in this work we consider the scenario of explaining loan denials. We build the first-of-its-kind dataset that is representative of loan-applicant friendly explanations. We design a novel Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) that can accommodate smaller datasets, to generate user-friendly textual explanations. We demonstrate how our system can also generate explanations serving different purposes: those that help educate the loan applicants, or help them take appropriate action towards a future approval.
More recently, there have been efforts in understanding the human interpretability of AI systems. The authors in @cite_20 provide a taxonomy for human interpretability of AI systems. A non-AI engineer perspective regarding explanations of AI system is provided in miller . A nice perspective of user-centered explanations is provided in @cite_12 , wherein the author emphasizes the need for persuasive explanations. The authors in @cite_14 explore the notion of interactivity from the lens of the user. In @cite_0 , the authors discuss how humans understand explanations from machine learning systems through a user study. The metrics used to measure human interpretability are those concerning explanation length, number of concepts used in the explanation, and the number of repeated terms. Interpretability is measured in terms of the time to response and the accuracy of the response. While these efforts are significant in quantifying human interpretability, they fall short of generating user-friendly explanations, which is the focus of this work.
@cite_0 @cite_14 @cite_12 @cite_20
2762968537 2769542353 2785327160 2951570986
We characterize three notions of explainable AI that cut across research fields: opaque systems that offer no insight into its algo- rithmic mechanisms; interpretable systems where users can mathemat- ically analyze its algorithmic mechanisms; and comprehensible systems that emit symbols enabling user-driven explanations of how a conclusion is reached. The paper is motivated by a corpus analysis of NIPS, ACL, COGSCI, and ICCV ECCV paper titles showing differences in how work on explainable AI is positioned in various fields. We close by introducing a fourth notion: truly explainable systems, where automated reasoning is central to output crafted explanations without requiring human post processing as final step of the generative process. Transparency, user trust, and human comprehension are popular ethical motivations for interpretable machine learning. In support of these goals, researchers evaluate model explanation performance using humans and real world applications. This alone presents a challenge in many areas of artificial intelligence. In this position paper, we propose a distinction between descriptive and persuasive explanations. We discuss reasoning suggesting that functional interpretability may be correlated with cognitive function and user preferences. If this is indeed the case, evaluation and optimization using functional metrics could perpetuate implicit cognitive bias in explanations that threaten transparency. Finally, we propose two potential research directions to disambiguate cognitive function and explanation models, retaining control over the tradeoff between accuracy and interpretability. Recent years have seen a boom in interest in machine learning systems that can provide a human-understandable rationale for their predictions or decisions. However, exactly what kinds of explanation are truly human-interpretable remains poorly understood. This work advances our understanding of what makes explanations interpretable in the specific context of verification. Suppose we have a machine learning system that predicts X, and we provide rationale for this prediction X. Given an input, an explanation, and an output, is the output consistent with the input and the supposed rationale? Via a series of user-studies, we identify what kinds of increases in complexity have the greatest effect on the time it takes for humans to verify the rationale, and which seem relatively insensitive. When AI systems interact with humans in the loop, they are often called on to provide explanations for their plans and behavior. Past work on plan explanations primarily involved the AI system explaining the correctness of its plan and the rationale for its decision in terms of its own model. Such soliloquy is wholly inadequate in most realistic scenarios where the humans have domain and task models that differ significantly from that used by the AI system. We posit that the explanations are best studied in light of these differing models. In particular, we show how explanation can be seen as a "model reconciliation problem" (MRP), where the AI system in effect suggests changes to the human's model, so as to make its plan be optimal with respect to that changed human model. We will study the properties of such explanations, present algorithms for automatically computing them, and evaluate the performance of the algorithms.