Explainable Authorship Identification in Cultural Heritage Applications: Analysis of a New Perspective

While a substantial amount of work has recently been devoted to enhance the performance of computational Authorship Identification (AId) systems, little to no attention has been paid to endowing AId systems with the ability to explain the reasons behind their predictions. This lacking substantially hinders the practical employment of AId methodologies, since the predictions returned by such systems are hardly useful unless they are supported with suitable explanations. In this paper, we explore the applicability of existing general-purpose eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to AId, with a special focus on explanations addressed to scholars working in cultural heritage. In particular, we assess the relative merits of three different types of XAI techniques (feature ranking, probing, factuals and counterfactual selection) on three different AId tasks (authorship attribution, authorship verification, same-authorship verification) by running experiments on real AId data. Our analysis shows that, while these techniques make important first steps towards explainable Authorship Identification, more work remains to be done in order to provide tools that can be profitably integrated in the workflows of scholars.

Regularization-Based Methods for Ordinal Quantification

Quantification, i.e., the task of training predictors of the class prevalence values in sets of unlabeled data items, has received increased attention in recent years. However, most quantification research has concentrated on developing algorithms for binary and multiclass problems in which the classes are not ordered. Here, we study the ordinal case, i.e., the case in which a total order is defined on the set of n>2 classes. We give three main contributions to this field. First, we create and make available two datasets for ordinal quantification (OQ) research that overcome the inadequacies of the previously available ones. Second, we experimentally compare the most important OQ algorithms proposed in the literature so far. To this end, we bring together algorithms proposed by authors from very different research fields, such as data mining and astrophysics, who were unaware of each others' developments. Third, we propose a novel class of regularized OQ algorithms, which outperforms existing algorithms in our experiments. The key to this gain in performance is that our regularization prevents ordinally implausible estimates, assuming that ordinal distributions tend to be smooth in practice. We informally verify this assumption for several real-world applications.

Binary Quantification and Dataset Shift: An Experimental Investigation

Quantification is the supervised learning task that consists of training predictors of the class prevalence values of sets of unlabelled data, and is of special interest when the labelled data on which the predictor has been trained and the unlabelled data are not IID, i.e., suffer from dataset shift. To date, quantification methods have mostly been tested only on a special case of dataset shift, i.e., prior probability shift; the relationship between quantification and other types of dataset shift remains, by and large, unexplored. In this work we carry out an experimental analysis of how current quantification algorithms behave under different types of dataset shift, in order to identify limitations of current approaches and hopefully pave the way for the development of more broadly applicable methods. We do this by proposing a fine-grained taxonomy of types of dataset shift, by establishing protocols for the generation of datasets affected by these types of shift, and by testing existing quantification methods on the datasets thus generated. One finding that results from this investigation is that many existing quantification methods that had been found robust to prior probability shift are not necessarily robust to other types of dataset shift. A second finding is that no existing quantification method seems to be robust enough to dealing with all the types of dataset shift we simulate in our experiments. The code needed to reproduce all our experiments is publicly available at https://github.com/pglez82/quant_datasetshift.

Same or Different? Diff-Vectors for Authorship Analysis

We investigate the effects on authorship identification tasks of a fundamental shift in how to conceive the vectorial representations of documents that are given as input to a supervised learner. In ``classic'' authorship analysis a feature vector represents a document, the value of a feature represents (an increasing function of) the relative frequency of the feature in the document, and the class label represents the author of the document. We instead investigate the situation in which a feature vector represents an unordered pair of documents, the value of a feature represents the absolute difference in the relative frequencies (or increasing functions thereof) of the feature in the two documents, and the class label indicates whether the two documents are from the same author or not. This latter (learner-independent) type of representation has been occasionally used before, but has never been studied systematically. We argue that it is advantageous, and that in some cases (e.g., authorship verification) it provides a much larger quantity of information to the training process than the standard representation. The experiments that we carry out on several publicly available datasets (among which one that we here make available for the first time) show that feature vectors representing pairs of documents (that we here call Diff-Vectors) bring about systematic improvements in the effectiveness of authorship identification tasks, and especially so when training data are scarce (as it is often the case in real-life authorship identification scenarios). Our experiments tackle same-author verification, authorship verification, and closed-set authorship attribution; while DVs are naturally geared for solving the 1st, we also provide two novel methods for solving the 2nd and 3rd that use a solver for the 1st as a building block.

Multi-Label Quantification

Quantification, variously called "supervised prevalence estimation" or "learning to quantify", is the supervised learning task of generating predictors of the relative frequencies (a.k.a. "prevalence values") of the classes of interest in unlabelled data samples. While many quantification methods have been proposed in the past for binary problems and, to a lesser extent, single-label multiclass problems, the multi-label setting (i.e., the scenario in which the classes of interest are not mutually exclusive) remains by and large unexplored. A straightforward solution to the multi-label quantification problem could simply consist of recasting the problem as a set of independent binary quantification problems. Such a solution is simple but na\"ive, since the independence assumption upon which it rests is, in most cases, not satisfied. In these cases, knowing the relative frequency of one class could be of help in determining the prevalence of other related classes. We propose the first truly multi-label quantification methods, i.e., methods for inferring estimators of class prevalence values that strive to leverage the stochastic dependencies among the classes of interest in order to predict their relative frequencies more accurately. We show empirical evidence that natively multi-label solutions outperform the na\"ive approaches by a large margin. The code to reproduce all our experiments is available online.

Unravelling Interlanguage Facts via Explainable Machine Learning

Native language identification (NLI) is the task of training (via supervised machine learning) a classifier that guesses the native language of the author of a text. This task has been extensively researched in the last decade, and the performance of NLI systems has steadily improved over the years. We focus on a different facet of the NLI task, i.e., that of analysing the internals of an NLI classifier trained by an \emph{explainable} machine learning algorithm, in order to obtain explanations of its classification decisions, with the ultimate goal of gaining insight into which linguistic phenomena ``give a speaker's native language away''. We use this perspective in order to tackle both NLI and a (much less researched) companion task, i.e., guessing whether a text has been written by a native or a non-native speaker. Using three datasets of different provenance (two datasets of English learners' essays and a dataset of social media posts), we investigate which kind of linguistic traits (lexical, morphological, syntactic, and statistical) are most effective for solving our two tasks, namely, are most indicative of a speaker's L1. We also present two case studies, one on Spanish and one on Italian learners of English, in which we analyse individual linguistic traits that the classifiers have singled out as most important for spotting these L1s. Overall, our study shows that the use of explainable machine learning can be a valuable tool for th

LeQua@CLEF2022: Learning to Quantify

LeQua 2022 is a new lab for the evaluation of methods for "learning to quantify" in textual datasets, i.e., for training predictors of the relative frequencies of the classes of interest in sets of unlabelled textual documents. While these predictions could be easily achieved by first classifying all documents via a text classifier and then counting the numbers of documents assigned to the classes, a growing body of literature has shown this approach to be suboptimal, and has proposed better methods. The goal of this lab is to provide a setting for the comparative evaluation of methods for learning to quantify, both in the binary setting and in the single-label multiclass setting. For each such setting we provide data either in ready-made vector form or in raw document form.

Syllabic Quantity Patterns as Rhythmic Features for Latin Authorship Attribution

It is well known that, within the Latin production of written text, peculiar metric schemes were followed not only in poetic compositions, but also in many prose works. Such metric patterns were based on so-called syllabic quantity, i.e., on the length of the involved syllables, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that certain authors had a preference for certain metric patterns over others. In this research we investigate the possibility to employ syllabic quantity as a base for deriving rhythmic features for the task of computational authorship attribution of Latin prose texts. We test the impact of these features on the authorship attribution task when combined with other topic-agnostic features. Our experiments, carried out on three different datasets, using two different machine learning methods, show that rhythmic features based on syllabic quantity are beneficial in discriminating among Latin prose authors.

Measuring Fairness under Unawareness via Quantification

Models trained by means of supervised learning are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, and, when their predictions inform decisions about people, they inevitably impact (positively or negatively) on their lives. As a consequence, those in charge of developing these models must carefully evaluate their impact on different groups of people and ensure that sensitive demographic attributes, such as race or sex, do not result in unfair treatment for members of specific groups. For doing this, awareness of demographic attributes on the part of those evaluating model impacts is fundamental. Unfortunately, the collection of these attributes is often in conflict with industry practices and legislation on data minimization and privacy. For this reason, it may be hard to measure the group fairness of trained models, even from within the companies developing them. In this work, we tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes, by using techniques from quantification, a supervised learning task concerned with directly providing group-level prevalence estimates (rather than individual-level class labels). We identify five important factors that complicate the estimation of fairness under unawareness and formalize them into five different experimental protocols under which we assess the effectiveness of different estimators of group fairness. We also consider the problem of potential model misuse to infer sensitive attributes at an individual level, and demonstrate that quantification approaches are suitable for decoupling the (desirable) objective of measuring group fairness from the (undesirable) objective of inferring sensitive attributes of individuals.

QuaPy: A Python-Based Framework for Quantification

QuaPy is an open-source framework for performing quantification (a.k.a. supervised prevalence estimation), written in Python. Quantification is the task of training quantifiers via supervised learning, where a quantifier is a predictor that estimates the relative frequencies (a.k.a. prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data. While quantification can be trivially performed by applying a standard classifier to each unlabelled data item and counting how many data items have been assigned to each class, it has been shown that this "classify and count" method is outperformed by methods specifically designed for quantification. QuaPy provides implementations of a number of baseline methods and advanced quantification methods, of routines for quantification-oriented model selection, of several broadly accepted evaluation measures, and of robust evaluation protocols routinely used in the field. QuaPy also makes available datasets commonly used for testing quantifiers, and offers visualization tools for facilitating the analysis and interpretation of the results. The software is open-source and publicly available under a BSD-3 licence via https://github.com/HLT-ISTI/QuaPy, and can be installed via pip (https://pypi.org/project/QuaPy/)