Eoin Delaney

Greta Warren, Mark T. Keane, Christophe Gueret et al.

Counterfactual explanations are an increasingly popular form of post hoc explanation due to their (i) applicability across problem domains, (ii) proposed legal compliance (e.g., with GDPR), and (iii) reliance on the contrastive nature of human explanation. Although counterfactual explanations are normally used to explain individual predictive-instances, we explore a novel use case in which groups of similar instances are explained in a collective fashion using ``group counterfactuals'' (e.g., to highlight a repeating pattern of illness in a group of patients). These group counterfactuals meet a human preference for coherent, broad explanations covering multiple events/instances. A novel, group-counterfactual algorithm is proposed to generate high-coverage explanations that are faithful to the to-be-explained model. This explanation strategy is also evaluated in a large, controlled user study (N=207), using objective (i.e., accuracy) and subjective (i.e., confidence, explanation satisfaction, and trust) psychological measures. The results show that group counterfactuals elicit modest but definite improvements in people's understanding of an AI system. The implications of these findings for counterfactual methods and for XAI are discussed.

Eoin Delaney, Arjun Pakrashi, Derek Greene et al.

Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a popular solution for the eXplainable AI (XAI) problem of elucidating the predictions of black-box deep-learning systems due to their psychological validity, flexibility across problem domains and proposed legal compliance. While over 100 counterfactual methods exist, claiming to generate plausible explanations akin to those preferred by people, few have actually been tested on users ($\sim7\%$). So, the psychological validity of these counterfactual algorithms for effective XAI for image data is not established. This issue is addressed here using a novel methodology that (i) gathers ground truth human-generated counterfactual explanations for misclassified images, in two user studies and, then, (ii) compares these human-generated ground-truth explanations to computationally-generated explanations for the same misclassifications. Results indicate that humans do not "minimally edit" images when generating counterfactual explanations. Instead, they make larger, "meaningful" edits that better approximate prototypes in the counterfactual class.

Eoin Kenny, Eoin Delaney, Mark Keane

Explainable AI (XAI) has been proposed as a valuable tool to assist in downstream tasks involving human and AI collaboration. Perhaps the most psychologically valid XAI techniques are case based approaches which display 'whole' exemplars to explain the predictions of black box AI systems. However, for such post hoc XAI methods dealing with images, there has been no attempt to improve their scope by using multiple clear feature 'parts' of the images to explain the predictions while linking back to relevant cases in the training data, thus allowing for more comprehensive explanations that are faithful to the underlying model. Here, we address this gap by proposing two general algorithms (latent and super pixel based) which can isolate multiple clear feature parts in a test image, and then connect them to the explanatory cases found in the training data, before testing their effectiveness in a carefully designed user study. Results demonstrate that the proposed approach appropriately calibrates a users feelings of 'correctness' for ambiguous classifications in real world data on the ImageNet dataset, an effect which does not happen when just showing the explanation without feature highlighting.

Kaivalya Rawal, Zihao Fu, Eoin Delaney et al.

There can be many competing and contradictory explanations for a single model prediction, making it difficult to select which one to use. Current explanation evaluation frameworks measure quality by comparing against ideal "ground-truth" explanations, or by verifying model sensitivity to important inputs. We outline the limitations of these approaches, and propose three desirable principles to ground the future development of explanation evaluation strategies for local feature importance explanations. We propose a ground-truth Agnostic eXplanation Evaluation framework (AXE) for evaluating and comparing model explanations that satisfies these principles. Unlike prior approaches, AXE does not require access to ideal ground-truth explanations for comparison, or rely on model sensitivity - providing an independent measure of explanation quality. We verify AXE by comparing with baselines, and show how it can be used to detect explanation fairwashing. Our code is available at https://github.com/KaiRawal/Evaluating-Model-Explanations-without-Ground-Truth.

Kaivalya Rawal, Eoin Delaney, Zihao Fu et al.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is concerned with producing explanations indicating the inner workings of models. For a Rashomon set of similarly performing models, explanations provide a way of disambiguating the behavior of individual models, helping select models for deployment. However explanations themselves can vary depending on the explainer used, and need to be evaluated. In the paper "Evaluating Model Explanations without Ground Truth", we proposed three principles of explanation evaluation and a new method "AXE" to evaluate the quality of feature-importance explanations. We go on to illustrate how evaluation metrics that rely on comparing model explanations against ideal ground truth explanations obscure behavioral differences within a Rashomon set. Explanation evaluation aligned with our proposed principles would highlight these differences instead, helping select models from the Rashomon set. The selection of alternate models from the Rashomon set can maintain identical predictions but mislead explainers into generating false explanations, and mislead evaluation methods into considering the false explanations to be of high quality. AXE, our proposed explanation evaluation method, can detect this adversarial fairwashing of explanations with a 100% success rate. Unlike prior explanation evaluation strategies such as those based on model sensitivity or ground truth comparison, AXE can determine when protected attributes are used to make predictions.

Eoin Delaney, Derek Greene, Mark T. Keane

Whilst an abundance of techniques have recently been proposed to generate counterfactual explanations for the predictions of opaque black-box systems, markedly less attention has been paid to exploring the uncertainty of these generated explanations. This becomes a critical issue in high-stakes scenarios, where uncertain and misleading explanations could have dire consequences (e.g., medical diagnosis and treatment planning). Moreover, it is often difficult to determine if the generated explanations are well grounded in the training data and sensitive to distributional shifts. This paper proposes several practical solutions that can be leveraged to solve these problems by establishing novel connections with other research works in explainability (e.g., trust scores) and uncertainty estimation (e.g., Monte Carlo Dropout). Two experiments demonstrate the utility of our proposed solutions.

Mark T Keane, Eoin M Kenny, Eoin Delaney et al.

In recent years, there has been an explosion of AI research on counterfactual explanations as a solution to the problem of eXplainable AI (XAI). These explanations seem to offer technical, psychological and legal benefits over other explanation techniques. We survey 100 distinct counterfactual explanation methods reported in the literature. This survey addresses the extent to which these methods have been adequately evaluated, both psychologically and computationally, and quantifies the shortfalls occurring. For instance, only 21% of these methods have been user tested. Five key deficits in the evaluation of these methods are detailed and a roadmap, with standardised benchmark evaluations, is proposed to resolve the issues arising; issues, that currently effectively block scientific progress in this field.

Eoin Delaney, Derek Greene, Mark T. Keane

In recent years, there has been a rapidly expanding focus on explaining the predictions made by black-box AI systems that handle image and tabular data. However, considerably less attention has been paid to explaining the predictions of opaque AI systems handling time series data. In this paper, we advance a novel model-agnostic, case-based technique -- Native Guide -- that generates counterfactual explanations for time series classifiers. Given a query time series, $T_{q}$, for which a black-box classification system predicts class, $c$, a counterfactual time series explanation shows how $T_{q}$ could change, such that the system predicts an alternative class, $c'$. The proposed instance-based technique adapts existing counterfactual instances in the case-base by highlighting and modifying discriminative areas of the time series that underlie the classification. Quantitative and qualitative results from two comparative experiments indicate that Native Guide generates plausible, proximal, sparse and diverse explanations that are better than those produced by key benchmark counterfactual methods.