Hangzhi Guo

Hangzhi Guo, Feiran Jia, Jinghui Chen et al.

Counterfactual (CF) explanations for machine learning (ML) models are preferred by end-users, as they explain the predictions of ML models by providing a recourse (or contrastive) case to individuals who are adversely impacted by predicted outcomes. Existing CF explanation methods generate recourses under the assumption that the underlying target ML model remains stationary over time. However, due to commonly occurring distributional shifts in training data, ML models constantly get updated in practice, which might render previously generated recourses invalid and diminish end-users trust in our algorithmic framework. To address this problem, we propose RoCourseNet, a training framework that jointly optimizes predictions and recourses that are robust to future data shifts. This work contains four key contributions: (1) We formulate the robust recourse generation problem as a tri-level optimization problem which consists of two sub-problems: (i) a bi-level problem that finds the worst-case adversarial shift in the training data, and (ii) an outer minimization problem to generate robust recourses against this worst-case shift. (2) We leverage adversarial training to solve this tri-level optimization problem by: (i) proposing a novel virtual data shift (VDS) algorithm to find worst-case shifted ML models via explicitly considering the worst-case data shift in the training dataset, and (ii) a block-wise coordinate descent procedure to optimize for prediction and corresponding robust recourses. (3) We evaluate RoCourseNet's performance on three real-world datasets, and show that RoCourseNet consistently achieves more than 96% robust validity and outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by at least 10% in generating robust CF explanations. (4) Finally, we generalize the RoCourseNet framework to accommodate any parametric post-hoc methods for improving robust validity.

Wenbo Zhang, Hangzhi Guo, Ian D Kivlichan et al.

Toxicity is an increasingly common and severe issue in online spaces. Consequently, a rich line of machine learning research over the past decade has focused on computationally detecting and mitigating online toxicity. These efforts crucially rely on human-annotated datasets that identify toxic content of various kinds in social media texts. However, such annotations historically yield low inter-rater agreement, which was often dealt with by taking the majority vote or other such approaches to arrive at a single ground truth label. Recent research has pointed out the importance of accounting for the subjective nature of this task when building and utilizing these datasets, and this has triggered work on analyzing and better understanding rater disagreements, and how they could be effectively incorporated into the machine learning developmental pipeline. While these efforts are filling an important gap, there is a lack of a broader framework about the root causes of rater disagreement, and therefore, we situate this work within that broader landscape. In this survey paper, we analyze a broad set of literature on the reasons behind rater disagreements focusing on online toxicity, and propose a detailed taxonomy for the same. Further, we summarize and discuss the potential solutions targeting each reason for disagreement. We also discuss several open issues, which could promote the future development of online toxicity research.

Hangzhi Guo, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Eunchae Jang et al.

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) tools across diverse applications has amplified the importance of addressing societal biases inherent within these technologies. While the NLP community has extensively studied LLM bias, research investigating how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from these systems remains limited. As these technologies become increasingly prevalent, understanding this question is crucial to inform model developers in their efforts to mitigate bias. To address this gap, this work presents the findings from a university-level competition, which challenged participants to design prompts for eliciting biased outputs from GenAI tools. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the competition submissions and identify a diverse set of biases in GenAI and strategies employed by participants to induce bias in GenAI. Our finding provides unique insights into how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from GenAI tools.

Xinyu Wang, Wenbo Zhang, Sai Koneru et al.

With the rise of AI-generated content spewed at scale from large language models (LLMs), genuine concerns about the spread of fake news have intensified. The perceived ability of LLMs to produce convincing fake news at scale poses new challenges for both human and automated fake news detection systems. To address this gap, this paper presents the findings from a university-level competition that aimed to explore how LLMs can be used by humans to create fake news, and to assess the ability of human annotators and AI models to detect it. A total of 110 participants used LLMs to create 252 unique fake news stories, and 84 annotators participated in the detection tasks. Our findings indicate that LLMs are ~68% more effective at detecting real news than humans. However, for fake news detection, the performance of LLMs and humans remains comparable (~60% accuracy). Additionally, we examine the impact of visual elements (e.g., pictures) in news on the accuracy of detecting fake news stories. Finally, we also examine various strategies used by fake news creators to enhance the credibility of their AI-generated content. This work highlights the increasing complexity of detecting AI-generated fake news, particularly in collaborative human-AI settings.

Firdaus Ahmed Choudhury, Ethan Leicht, Jude Ethan Bislig et al.

Machine learning-based decision models are increasingly being used to make decisions that significantly impact people's lives, but their opaque nature leaves end users without a clear understanding of why a decision was made. Counterfactual Explanations (CFEs) have grown in popularity as a means of offering actionable guidance by identifying the minimum changes in feature values required to flip a model's prediction to something more desirable. Unfortunately, most prior research in CFEs relies on artificial evaluation metrics, such as proximity, which may overlook end-user preferences and constraints, e.g., the user's perception of effort needed to make certain feature changes may differ from that of the model designer. To address this research gap, this paper makes three novel contributions. First, we conduct a pilot study with 20 crowd-workers on Amazon MTurk to experimentally validate the alignment of existing CF evaluation metrics with real-world user preferences. Results show that user-preferred CFEs matched those based on proximity in only 63.81% of cases, highlighting the limited applicability of these metrics in real-world settings. Second, inspired by the need to design a user-informed evaluation metric for CFEs, we conduct a more detailed two-day user study with 41 participants facing realistic credit application scenarios to find experimental support for or against three intuitive hypotheses that may explain how end users evaluate CFEs. Third, based on the findings of this second study, we propose the AWP model, a novel user-centric, two-stage model that describes one possible mechanism by which users evaluate and select CFEs. Our results show that AWP predicts user-preferred CFEs with 84.37% accuracy. Our study provides the first human-centered validation for personalized cost models in CFE generation and highlights the need for adaptive, user-centered evaluation metrics.

Hangzhi Guo, Thanh Hong Nguyen, Amulya Yadav

This work presents CounterNet, a novel end-to-end learning framework which integrates Machine Learning (ML) model training and the generation of corresponding counterfactual (CF) explanations into a single end-to-end pipeline. Counterfactual explanations offer a contrastive case, i.e., they attempt to find the smallest modification to the feature values of an instance that changes the prediction of the ML model on that instance to a predefined output. Prior techniques for generating CF explanations suffer from two major limitations: (i) all of them are post-hoc methods designed for use with proprietary ML models -- as a result, their procedure for generating CF explanations is uninformed by the training of the ML model, which leads to misalignment between model predictions and explanations; and (ii) most of them rely on solving separate time-intensive optimization problems to find CF explanations for each input data point (which negatively impacts their runtime). This work makes a novel departure from the prevalent post-hoc paradigm (of generating CF explanations) by presenting CounterNet, an end-to-end learning framework which integrates predictive model training and the generation of counterfactual (CF) explanations into a single pipeline. Unlike post-hoc methods, CounterNet enables the optimization of the CF explanation generation only once together with the predictive model. We adopt a block-wise coordinate descent procedure which helps in effectively training CounterNet's network. Our extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets show that CounterNet generates high-quality predictions, and consistently achieves 100% CF validity and low proximity scores (thereby achieving a well-balanced cost-invalidity trade-off) for any new input instance, and runs 3X faster than existing state-of-the-art baselines.