Understanding the Effect of Out-of-distribution Examples and Interactive Explanations on Human-AI Decision Making

Although AI holds promise for improving human decision making in societally critical domains, it remains an open question how human-AI teams can reliably outperform AI alone and human alone in challenging prediction tasks (also known as complementary performance). We explore two directions to understand the gaps in achieving complementary performance. First, we argue that the typical experimental setup limits the potential of human-AI teams. To account for lower AI performance out-of-distribution than in-distribution because of distribution shift, we design experiments with different distribution types and investigate human performance for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution examples. Second, we develop novel interfaces to support interactive explanations so that humans can actively engage with AI assistance. Using in-person user study and large-scale randomized experiments across three tasks, we demonstrate a clear difference between in-distribution and out-of-distribution, and observe mixed results for interactive explanations: while interactive explanations improve human perception of AI assistance's usefulness, they may magnify human biases and lead to limited performance improvement. Overall, our work points out critical challenges and future directions towards complementary performance.

Towards Unifying Feature Attribution and Counterfactual Explanations: Different Means to the Same End

To explain a machine learning model, there are two main approaches: feature attributions that assign an importance score to each input feature, and counterfactual explanations that provide input examples with minimal changes to alter the model's prediction. We provide two key results towards unifying these approaches in terms of their interpretation and use. First, we present a method to generate feature attribution explanations from a set of counterfactual examples. These feature attributions convey how important a feature is to changing the classification outcome of a model, especially on whether a subset of features is necessary and/or sufficient for that change, which feature attribution methods are unable to provide. Second, we show how counterfactual examples can be used to evaluate the goodness of an attribution-based explanation in terms of its necessity and sufficiency. As a result, we highlight the complementarity of these two approaches and provide an interpretation based on a causal inference framework. Our evaluation on three benchmark datasets -- Adult Income, LendingClub, and GermanCredit -- confirm the complementarity. Feature attribution methods like LIME and SHAP and counterfactual explanation methods like DiCE often do not agree on feature importance rankings. In addition, by restricting the features that can be modified for generating counterfactual examples, we find that the top-k features from LIME or SHAP are neither necessary nor sufficient explanations of a model's prediction. Finally, we present a case study of different explanation methods on a real-world hospital triage problem.

Evaluating and Characterizing Human Rationales

Two main approaches for evaluating the quality of machine-generated rationales are: 1) using human rationales as a gold standard; and 2) automated metrics based on how rationales affect model behavior. An open question, however, is how human rationales fare with these automatic metrics. Analyzing a variety of datasets and models, we find that human rationales do not necessarily perform well on these metrics. To unpack this finding, we propose improved metrics to account for model-dependent baseline performance. We then propose two methods to further characterize rationale quality, one based on model retraining and one on using "fidelity curves" to reveal properties such as irrelevance and redundancy. Our work leads to actionable suggestions for evaluating and characterizing rationales.

Characterizing the Value of Information in Medical Notes

Machine learning models depend on the quality of input data. As electronic health records are widely adopted, the amount of data in health care is growing, along with complaints about the quality of medical notes. We use two prediction tasks, readmission prediction and in-hospital mortality prediction, to characterize the value of information in medical notes. We show that as a whole, medical notes only provide additional predictive power over structured information in readmission prediction. We further propose a probing framework to select parts of notes that enable more accurate predictions than using all notes, despite that the selected information leads to a distribution shift from the training data ("all notes"). Finally, we demonstrate that models trained on the selected valuable information achieve even better predictive performance, with only 6.8% of all the tokens for readmission prediction.

Harnessing Explanations to Bridge AI and Humans

Machine learning models are increasingly integrated into societally critical applications such as recidivism prediction and medical diagnosis, thanks to their superior predictive power. In these applications, however, full automation is often not desired due to ethical and legal concerns. The research community has thus ventured into developing interpretable methods that explain machine predictions. While these explanations are meant to assist humans in understanding machine predictions and thereby allowing humans to make better decisions, this hypothesis is not supported in many recent studies. To improve human decision-making with AI assistance, we propose future directions for closing the gap between the efficacy of explanations and improvement in human performance.

"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans

To support human decision making with machine learning models, we often need to elucidate patterns embedded in the models that are unsalient, unknown, or counterintuitive to humans. While existing approaches focus on explaining machine predictions with real-time assistance, we explore model-driven tutorials to help humans understand these patterns in a training phase. We consider both tutorials with guidelines from scientific papers, analogous to current practices of science communication, and automatically selected examples from training data with explanations. We use deceptive review detection as a testbed and conduct large-scale, randomized human-subject experiments to examine the effectiveness of such tutorials. We find that tutorials indeed improve human performance, with and without real-time assistance. In particular, although deep learning provides superior predictive performance than simple models, tutorials and explanations from simple models are more useful to humans. Our work suggests future directions for human-centered tutorials and explanations towards a synergy between humans and AI.

Preserving Causal Constraints in Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Classifiers

Explaining the output of a complex machine learning (ML) model often requires approximation using a simpler model. To construct interpretable explanations that are also consistent with the original ML model, counterfactual examples --- showing how the model's output changes with small perturbations to the input --- have been proposed. This paper extends the work in counterfactual explanations by addressing the challenge of feasibility of such examples. For explanations of ML models in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, etc, counterfactual examples are useful for an end-user only to the extent that perturbation of feature inputs is feasible in the real world. We formulate the problem of feasibility as preserving causal relationships among input features and present a method that uses (partial) structural causal models to generate actionable counterfactuals. When feasibility constraints may not be easily expressed, we propose an alternative method that optimizes for feasibility as people interact with its output and provide oracle-like feedback. Our experiments on a Bayesian network and the widely used "Adult" dataset show that our proposed methods can generate counterfactual explanations that satisfy feasibility constraints.

What Gets Echoed? Understanding the "Pointers" in Explanations of Persuasive Arguments

Explanations are central to everyday life, and are a topic of growing interest in the AI community. To investigate the process of providing natural language explanations, we leverage the dynamics of the /r/ChangeMyView subreddit to build a dataset with 36K naturally occurring explanations of why an argument is persuasive. We propose a novel word-level prediction task to investigate how explanations selectively reuse, or echo, information from what is being explained (henceforth, explanandum). We develop features to capture the properties of a word in the explanandum, and show that our proposed features not only have relatively strong predictive power on the echoing of a word in an explanation, but also enhance neural methods of generating explanations. In particular, while the non-contextual properties of a word itself are more valuable for stopwords, the interaction between the constituent parts of an explanandum is crucial in predicting the echoing of content words. We also find intriguing patterns of a word being echoed. For example, although nouns are generally less likely to be echoed, subjects and objects can, depending on their source, be more likely to be echoed in the explanations.

Content Removal as a Moderation Strategy: Compliance and Other Outcomes in the ChangeMyView Community

Moderators of online communities often employ comment deletion as a tool. We ask here whether, beyond the positive effects of shielding a community from undesirable content, does comment removal actually cause the behavior of the comment's author to improve? We examine this question in a particularly well-moderated community, the ChangeMyView subreddit. The standard analytic approach of interrupted time-series analysis unfortunately cannot answer this question of causality because it fails to distinguish the effect of having made a non-compliant comment from the effect of being subjected to moderator removal of that comment. We therefore leverage a "delayed feedback" approach based on the observation that some users may remain active between the time when they posted the non-compliant comment and the time when that comment is deleted. Applying this approach to such users, we reveal the causal role of comment deletion in reducing immediate noncompliance rates, although we do not find evidence of it having a causal role in inducing other behavior improvements. Our work thus empirically demonstrates both the promise and some potential limits of content removal as a positive moderation strategy, and points to future directions for identifying causal effects from observational data.

Many Faces of Feature Importance: Comparing Built-in and Post-hoc Feature Importance in Text Classification

Feature importance is commonly used to explain machine predictions. While feature importance can be derived from a machine learning model with a variety of methods, the consistency of feature importance via different methods remains understudied. In this work, we systematically compare feature importance from built-in mechanisms in a model such as attention values and post-hoc methods that approximate model behavior such as LIME. Using text classification as a testbed, we find that 1) no matter which method we use, important features from traditional models such as SVM and XGBoost are more similar with each other, than with deep learning models; 2) post-hoc methods tend to generate more similar important features for two models than built-in methods. We further demonstrate how such similarity varies across instances. Notably, important features do not always resemble each other better when two models agree on the predicted label than when they disagree.