Yu-Liang Chou

Catarina Moreira, Yu-Liang Chou, Chihcheng Hsieh et al.

This study investigates the impact of machine learning models on the generation of counterfactual explanations by conducting a benchmark evaluation over three different types of models: a decision tree (fully transparent, interpretable, white-box model), a random forest (semi-interpretable, grey-box model), and a neural network (fully opaque, black-box model). We tested the counterfactual generation process using four algorithms (DiCE, WatcherCF, prototype, and GrowingSpheresCF) in the literature in 25 different datasets. Our findings indicate that: (1) Different machine learning models have little impact on the generation of counterfactual explanations; (2) Counterfactual algorithms based uniquely on proximity loss functions are not actionable and will not provide meaningful explanations; (3) One cannot have meaningful evaluation results without guaranteeing plausibility in the counterfactual generation. Algorithms that do not consider plausibility in their internal mechanisms will lead to biased and unreliable conclusions if evaluated with the current state-of-the-art metrics; (4) A counterfactual inspection analysis is strongly recommended to ensure a robust examination of counterfactual explanations and the potential identification of biases.

Catarina Moreira, Yu-Liang Chou, Mythreyi Velmurugan et al.

The use of sophisticated machine learning models for critical decision making is faced with a challenge that these models are often applied as a "black-box". This has led to an increased interest in interpretable machine learning, where post hoc interpretation presents a useful mechanism for generating interpretations of complex learning models. In this paper, we propose a novel approach underpinned by an extended framework of Bayesian networks for generating post hoc interpretations of a black-box predictive model. The framework supports extracting a Bayesian network as an approximation of the black-box model for a specific prediction. Compared to the existing post hoc interpretation methods, the contribution of our approach is three-fold. Firstly, the extracted Bayesian network, as a probabilistic graphical model, can provide interpretations about not only what input features but also why these features contributed to a prediction. Secondly, for complex decision problems with many features, a Markov blanket can be generated from the extracted Bayesian network to provide interpretations with a focused view on those input features that directly contributed to a prediction. Thirdly, the extracted Bayesian network enables the identification of four different rules which can inform the decision-maker about the confidence level in a prediction, thus helping the decision-maker assess the reliability of predictions learned by a black-box model. We implemented the proposed approach, applied it in the context of two well-known public datasets and analysed the results, which are made available in an open-source repository.

Yu-Liang Chou, Catarina Moreira, Peter Bruza et al.

There has been a growing interest in model-agnostic methods that can make deep learning models more transparent and explainable to a user. Some researchers recently argued that for a machine to achieve a certain degree of human-level explainability, this machine needs to provide human causally understandable explanations, also known as causability. A specific class of algorithms that have the potential to provide causability are counterfactuals. This paper presents an in-depth systematic review of the diverse existing body of literature on counterfactuals and causability for explainable artificial intelligence. We performed an LDA topic modelling analysis under a PRISMA framework to find the most relevant literature articles. This analysis resulted in a novel taxonomy that considers the grounding theories of the surveyed algorithms, together with their underlying properties and applications in real-world data. This research suggests that current model-agnostic counterfactual algorithms for explainable AI are not grounded on a causal theoretical formalism and, consequently, cannot promote causability to a human decision-maker. Our findings suggest that the explanations derived from major algorithms in the literature provide spurious correlations rather than cause/effects relationships, leading to sub-optimal, erroneous or even biased explanations. This paper also advances the literature with new directions and challenges on promoting causability in model-agnostic approaches for explainable artificial intelligence.