A Human-Centered Agenda for Intelligible Machine Learning

To build machine learning systems that are reliable, trustworthy, and fair, we must be able to provide relevant stakeholders with an understanding of how these systems work. Yet what makes a system “intelligible” is difficult to pin down. Intelligibility is a fundamentally human-centered concept that lacks a one-size-fits-all solution. Although many intelligibility techniques have been proposed in the machine learning literature, there are many more open questions about how best to provide stakeholders with the information they need to achieve their desired goals. In this chapter, we begin with an overview of the intelligible machine learning landscape and give several examples of the diverse ways in which needs for intelligibility can arise. We provide an overview of the techniques for achieving intelligibility that have been proposed in the machine learning literature. We discuss the importance of taking a human-centered strategy when designing intelligibility techniques or when verifying that these techniques achieve their intended goals. We also argue that the notion of intelligibility should be expanded beyond machine learning models to other components of machine learning systems, such as datasets and performance metrics. Finally, we emphasize the necessity of tight integration between the machine learning and human–computer interaction communities.

[1]  Paul N. Bennett,et al.  Will You Accept an Imperfect AI?: Exploring Designs for Adjusting End-user Expectations of AI Systems , 2019, CHI.

[2]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Optimized Scoring Systems: Toward Trust in Machine Learning for Healthcare and Criminal Justice , 2018, Interfaces.

[3]  Chris Russell,et al.  Efficient Search for Diverse Coherent Explanations , 2019, FAT.

[4]  Steven M. Drucker,et al.  Gamut: A Design Probe to Understand How Data Scientists Understand Machine Learning Models , 2019, CHI.

[5]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Model Cards for Model Reporting , 2018, FAT.

[6]  Johannes Gehrke,et al.  Intelligible models for classification and regression , 2012, KDD.

[7]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Faithful and Customizable Explanations of Black Box Models , 2019, AIES.

[8]  Rachel K. E. Bellamy,et al.  Explaining models an empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment , 2019 .

[9]  Daniel G. Goldstein,et al.  Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability , 2018, CHI.

[10]  Eunsol Choi,et al.  QuAC: Question Answering in Context , 2018, EMNLP.

[11]  Todd Kulesza,et al.  Tell me more?: the effects of mental model soundness on personalizing an intelligent agent , 2012, CHI.

[12]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  The Illusion of Control: Placebo Effects of Control Settings , 2018, CHI.

[13]  Nazli Ikizler-Cinbis,et al.  RecipeQA: A Challenge Dataset for Multimodal Comprehension of Cooking Recipes , 2018, EMNLP.

[14]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  Interacting meaningfully with machine learning systems: Three experiments , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods , 2018, ArXiv.

[16]  Brandin Hanson Knowles Intelligibility in the Face of Uncertainty , 2017 .

[17]  David Maxwell Chickering,et al.  ModelTracker: Redesigning Performance Analysis Tools for Machine Learning , 2015, CHI.

[18]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Design of an intelligible mobile context-aware application , 2011, Mobile HCI.

[19]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks , 2018, NeurIPS.

[20]  Weng-Keen Wong,et al.  Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models , 2013, 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing.

[21]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead , 2018, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[22]  Martin Wattenberg,et al.  Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV) , 2017, ICML.

[23]  Regina Barzilay,et al.  Rationalizing Neural Predictions , 2016, EMNLP.

[24]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , 2017, NIPS.

[25]  Yang Liu,et al.  Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification , 2018, FAT.

[26]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Simple Rules for Complex Decisions , 2017, 1702.04690.

[27]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[28]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Human Evaluation of Models Built for Interpretability , 2019, HCOMP.

[29]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems , 2009, CHI.

[30]  Zachary Chase Lipton The mythos of model interpretability , 2016, ACM Queue.

[31]  Rocky Ross,et al.  Mental models , 2004, SIGA.

[32]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Human-in-the-Loop Interpretability Prior , 2018, NeurIPS.

[33]  W. Keith Edwards,et al.  Intelligibility and Accountability: Human Considerations in Context-Aware Systems , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[34]  Mohan S. Kankanhalli,et al.  Trends and Trajectories for Explainable, Accountable and Intelligible Systems: An HCI Research Agenda , 2018, CHI.

[35]  Judith Masthoff,et al.  Designing and Evaluating Explanations for Recommender Systems , 2011, Recommender Systems Handbook.

[36]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Datasheets for datasets , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[37]  Rich Caruana,et al.  Distill-and-Compare: Auditing Black-Box Models Using Transparent Model Distillation , 2017, AIES.

[38]  Andrea Bunt,et al.  Are explanations always important?: a study of deployed, low-cost intelligent interactive systems , 2012, IUI '12.

[39]  Tim Miller,et al.  Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[40]  Percy Liang,et al.  Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions , 2017, ICML.

[41]  Ming Yin,et al.  Understanding the Effect of Accuracy on Trust in Machine Learning Models , 2019, CHI.

[42]  Thomas S. Woodson Weapons of math destruction , 2018, Journal of Responsible Innovation.

[43]  Harmanpreet Kaur,et al.  Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine Learning , 2020, CHI.

[44]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[45]  Johannes Gehrke,et al.  Intelligible Models for HealthCare: Predicting Pneumonia Risk and Hospital 30-day Readmission , 2015, KDD.

[46]  Daniel S. Weld,et al.  The challenge of crafting intelligible intelligence , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[47]  Kush R. Varshney,et al.  Increasing Trust in AI Services through Supplier's Declarations of Conformity , 2018, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[48]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Some observations on mental models , 1987 .

[49]  David McSherry,et al.  Explanation in Recommender Systems , 2005, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[50]  Dympna O'Sullivan,et al.  The Role of Explanations on Trust and Reliance in Clinical Decision Support Systems , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Healthcare Informatics.

[51]  Bongshin Lee,et al.  Squares: Supporting Interactive Performance Analysis for Multiclass Classifiers , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[52]  Johannes Gehrke,et al.  Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions , 2013, KDD.

[53]  Been Kim,et al.  Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning , 2017, 1702.08608.

[54]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Investigating intelligibility for uncertain context-aware applications , 2011, UbiComp '11.

[55]  Hanna M. Wallach,et al.  Weight of Evidence as a Basis for Human-Oriented Explanations , 2019, ArXiv.

[56]  Chris Russell,et al.  Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR , 2017, ArXiv.

[57]  Dean C. Barnlund A TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF COMMUNICATION , 1970 .

[58]  Emily M. Bender,et al.  Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science , 2018, TACL.

[59]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[60]  Samir Elhedhli,et al.  The Effectiveness of Simple Decision Heuristics: Forecasting Commercial Success for Early-Stage Ventures , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[61]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Supersparse linear integer models for optimized medical scoring systems , 2015, Machine Learning.

[62]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Simplicity Creates Inequity: Implications for Fairness, Stereotypes, and Interpretability , 2018, EC.

[63]  Michael Veale,et al.  Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making , 2018, CHI.

[64]  Jun Zhao,et al.  'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions , 2018, CHI.

[65]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  A causal framework for explaining the predictions of black-box sequence-to-sequence models , 2017, EMNLP.