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 algorithmic and domain-specific constraints -- such as density-based feasibility for the former and attribute (im)mutability or directionality of change for the latter -- that aim to maximise their real-life utility. In addition to desiderata with respect to the counterfactual instance itself, the existence of a viable path connecting it with the factual data point, known as algorithmic recourse, has become an important technical consideration. While both of these requirements ensure that the steps of the journey as well as its destination are admissible, current literature neglects the multiplicity of such counterfactual paths. To address this shortcoming we introduce the novel concept of explanatory multiverse that encompasses all the possible counterfactual journeys and shows how to navigate, reason about and compare the geometry of these paths -- their affinity, branching, divergence and possible future convergence -- with two methods: vector spaces and graphs. Implementing this (interactive) explanatory process grants explainees more agency by allowing them to select counterfactuals based on the properties of the journey leading to them in addition to their absolute differences.

More Is Less: When Do Recommenders Underperform for Data-rich Users?

Users of recommender systems tend to differ in their level of interaction with these algorithms, which may affect the quality of recommendations they receive and lead to undesirable performance disparity. In this paper we investigate under what conditions the performance for data-rich and data-poor users diverges for a collection of popular evaluation metrics applied to ten benchmark datasets. We find that Precision is consistently higher for data-rich users across all the datasets; Mean Average Precision is comparable across user groups but its variance is large; Recall yields a counter-intuitive result where the algorithm performs better for data-poor than for data-rich users, which bias is further exacerbated when negative item sampling is employed during evaluation. The final observation suggests that as users interact more with recommender systems, the quality of recommendations they receive degrades (when measured by Recall). Our insights clearly show the importance of an evaluation protocol and its influence on the reported results when studying recommender systems.

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

Explainable artificial intelligence techniques are evolving at breakneck speed, but suitable evaluation approaches currently 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 complex predictive algorithms and instead look into explainability of simple mathematical models. In this setting, we aim to assess how people perceive comprehensibility of different model representations such as mathematical formulation, graphical representation and textual summarisation (of varying scope). This allows diverse stakeholders -- engineers, researchers, consumers, regulators and the like -- to judge intelligibility of fundamental concepts that more complex 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.