Laura State

Carlos Mougan, Laura State, Antonio Ferrara et al.

Liberalism-oriented political philosophy reasons that all individuals should be treated equally independently of their protected characteristics. Related work in machine learning has translated the concept of \emph{equal treatment} into terms of \emph{equal outcome} and measured it as \emph{demographic parity} (also called \emph{statistical parity}). Our analysis reveals that the two concepts of equal outcome and equal treatment diverge; therefore, demographic parity does not faithfully represent the notion of \emph{equal treatment}. We propose a new formalization for equal treatment by (i) considering the influence of feature values on predictions, such as computed by Shapley values decomposing predictions across its features, (ii) defining distributions of explanations, and (iii) comparing explanation distributions between populations with different protected characteristics. We show the theoretical properties of our notion of equal treatment and devise a classifier two-sample test based on the AUC of an equal treatment inspector. We study our formalization of equal treatment on synthetic and natural data. We release \texttt{explanationspace}, an open-source Python package with methods and tutorials.

Laura State, Hadrien Salat, Stefania Rubrichi et al.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) provides explanations for not interpretable machine learning (ML) models. While many technical approaches exist, there is a lack of validation of these techniques on real-world datasets. In this work, we present a use-case of XAI: an ML model which is trained to estimate electrification rates based on mobile phone data in Senegal. The data originate from the Data for Development challenge by Orange in 2014/15. We apply two model-agnostic, local explanation techniques and find that while the model can be verified, it is biased with respect to the population density. We conclude our paper by pointing to the two main challenges we encountered during our work: data processing and model design that might be restricted by currently available XAI methods, and the importance of domain knowledge to interpret explanations.

Laura State, Alejandra Bringas Colmenarejo, Andrea Beretta et al.

Explainable AI (XAI) provides methods to understand non-interpretable machine learning models. However, we have little knowledge about what legal experts expect from these explanations, including their legal compliance with, and value against European Union legislation. To close this gap, we present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI, with a specific focus on the European General Data Protection Regulation. The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain. We extract both a set of hierarchical and interconnected codes using grounded theory, and present the standpoints of the participating experts towards XAI. We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject. Finally, we present a set of recommendations for developers of XAI methods, and indications of legal areas of discussion. Among others, recommendations address the presentation, choice, and content of an explanation, technical risks as well as the end-user, while we provide legal pointers to the contestability of explanations, transparency thresholds, intellectual property rights as well as the relationship between involved parties.

Laura State, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini

Explaining opaque Machine Learning (ML) models is an increasingly relevant problem. Current explanation in AI (XAI) methods suffer several shortcomings, among others an insufficient incorporation of background knowledge, and a lack of abstraction and interactivity with the user. We propose REASONX, an explanation method based on Constraint Logic Programming (CLP). REASONX can provide declarative, interactive explanations for decision trees, which can be the ML models under analysis or global/local surrogate models of any black-box model. Users can express background or common sense knowledge using linear constraints and MILP optimization over features of factual and contrastive instances, and interact with the answer constraints at different levels of abstraction through constraint projection. We present here the architecture of REASONX, which consists of a Python layer, closer to the user, and a CLP layer. REASONX's core execution engine is a Prolog meta-program with declarative semantics in terms of logic theories.

Laura State, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini

Many high-performing machine learning models are not interpretable. As they are increasingly used in decision scenarios that can critically affect individuals, it is necessary to develop tools to better understand their outputs. Popular explanation methods include contrastive explanations. However, they suffer several shortcomings, among others an insufficient incorporation of background knowledge, and a lack of interactivity. While (dialogue-like) interactivity is important to better communicate an explanation, background knowledge has the potential to significantly improve their quality, e.g., by adapting the explanation to the needs of the end-user. To close this gap, we present REASONX, an explanation tool based on Constraint Logic Programming (CLP). REASONX provides interactive contrastive explanations that can be augmented by background knowledge, and allows to operate under a setting of under-specified information, leading to increased flexibility in the provided explanations. REASONX computes factual and constrative decision rules, as well as closest constrative examples. It provides explanations for decision trees, which can be the ML models under analysis, or global/local surrogate models of any ML model. While the core part of REASONX is built on CLP, we also provide a program layer that allows to compute the explanations via Python, making the tool accessible to a wider audience. We illustrate the capability of REASONX on a synthetic data set, and on a a well-developed example in the credit domain. In both cases, we can show how REASONX can be flexibly used and tailored to the needs of the user.