Thao Le

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Ronal Singh et al.

In this paper, we show that counterfactual explanations of confidence scores help users better understand and better trust an AI model's prediction in human-subject studies. Showing confidence scores in human-agent interaction systems can help build trust between humans and AI systems. However, most existing research only used the confidence score as a form of communication, and we still lack ways to explain why the algorithm is confident. This paper also presents two methods for understanding model confidence using counterfactual explanation: (1) based on counterfactual examples; and (2) based on visualisation of the counterfactual space.

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Ronal Singh et al.

Displaying confidence scores in human-AI interaction has been shown to help build trust between humans and AI systems. However, most existing research uses only the confidence score as a form of communication. As confidence scores are just another model output, users may want to understand why the algorithm is confident to determine whether to accept the confidence score. In this paper, we show that counterfactual explanations of confidence scores help study participants to better understand and better trust a machine learning model's prediction. We present two methods for understanding model confidence using counterfactual explanation: (1) based on counterfactual examples; and (2) based on visualisation of the counterfactual space. Both increase understanding and trust for study participants over a baseline of no explanation, but qualitative results show that they are used quite differently, leading to recommendations of when to use each one and directions of designing better explanations.

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Liz Sonenberg et al.

This paper presents a hypothesis-driven approach to improve AI-supported decision-making that is based on the Evaluative AI paradigm - a conceptual framework that proposes providing users with evidence for or against a given hypothesis. We propose an implementation of Evaluative AI by extending the Weight of Evidence framework, leading to hypothesis-driven models that support both tabular and image data. We demonstrate the application of the new decision-support approach in two domains: housing price prediction and skin cancer diagnosis. The findings show promising results in improving human decisions, as well as providing insights on the strengths and weaknesses of different decision-support approaches.

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Ruihan Zhang et al.

This paper presents Visual Evaluative AI, a decision aid that provides positive and negative evidence from image data for a given hypothesis. This tool finds high-level human concepts in an image and generates the Weight of Evidence (WoE) for each hypothesis in the decision-making process. We apply and evaluate this tool in the skin cancer domain by building a web-based application that allows users to upload a dermatoscopic image, select a hypothesis and analyse their decisions by evaluating the provided evidence. Further, we demonstrate the effectiveness of Visual Evaluative AI on different concept-based explanation approaches.

Kien Do, Dung Nguyen, Hung Le et al.

In this paper, we study the "dataset bias" problem from a statistical standpoint, and identify the main cause of the problem as the strong correlation between a class attribute u and a non-class attribute b in the input x, represented by p(u|b) differing significantly from p(u). Since p(u|b) appears as part of the sampling distributions in the standard maximum log-likelihood (MLL) objective, a model trained on a biased dataset via MLL inherently incorporates such correlation into its parameters, leading to poor generalization to unbiased test data. From this observation, we propose to mitigate dataset bias via either weighting the objective of each sample n by \frac{1}{p(u_{n}|b_{n})} or sampling that sample with a weight proportional to \frac{1}{p(u_{n}|b_{n})}. While both methods are statistically equivalent, the former proves more stable and effective in practice. Additionally, we establish a connection between our debiasing approach and causal reasoning, reinforcing our method's theoretical foundation. However, when the bias label is unavailable, computing p(u|b) exactly is difficult. To overcome this challenge, we propose to approximate \frac{1}{p(u|b)} using a biased classifier trained with "bias amplification" losses. Extensive experiments on various biased datasets demonstrate the superiority of our method over existing debiasing techniques in most settings, validating our theoretical analysis.