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
2785327160 1501005121 2769542353 2594475271
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. Intelligent systems that learn interactively from their end-users are quickly becoming widespread. Until recently, this progress has been fueled mostly by advances in machine learning; however, more and more researchers are realizing the importance of studying users of these systems. In this article we promote this approach and demonstrate how it can result in better user experiences and more effective learning systems. We present a number of case studies that characterize the impact of interactivity, demonstrate ways in which some existing systems fail to account for the user, and explore new ways for learning systems to interact with their users. We argue that the design process for interactive machine learning systems should involve users at all stages: explorations that reveal human interaction patterns and inspire novel interaction methods, as well as refinement stages to tune details of the interface and choose among alternatives. After giving a glimpse of the progress that has been made so far, we discuss the challenges that we face in moving the field forward. 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. As machine learning systems become ubiquitous, there has been a surge of interest in interpretable machine learning: systems that provide explanation for their outputs. These explanations are often used to qualitatively assess other criteria such as safety or non-discrimination. However, despite the interest in interpretability, there is very little consensus on what interpretable machine learning is and how it should be measured. In this position paper, we first define interpretability and describe when interpretability is needed (and when it is not). Next, we suggest a taxonomy for rigorous evaluation and expose open questions towards a more rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.