No abstract

Machines powered by artificial intelligence increasingly mediate our social, cultural, economic and political interactions. Understanding the behaviour of artificial intelligence systems is essential to our ability to control their actions, reap their benefits and minimize their harms. Here we argue that this necessitates a broad scientific research agenda to study machine behaviour that incorporates and expands upon the discipline of computer science and includes insights from across the sciences. We first outline a set of questions that are fundamental to this emerging field and then explore the technical, legal and institutional constraints on the study of machine behaviour.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

AI systems are being deployed to support human decision making in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and criminal justice. In many cases, the human and AI form a team, in which the human makes decisions after reviewing the AI’s inferences. A successful partnership requires that the human develops insights into the performance of the AI system, including its failures. We study the influence of updates to an AI system in this setting. While updates can increase the AI’s predictive performance, they may also lead to behavioral changes that are at odds with the user’s prior experiences and confidence in the AI’s inferences. We show that updates that increase AI performance may actually hurt team performance. We introduce the notion of the compatibility of an AI update with prior user experience and present methods for studying the role of compatibility in human-AI teams. Empirical results on three high-stakes classification tasks show that current machine learning algorithms do not produce compatible updates. We propose a re-training objective to improve the compatibility of an update by penalizing new errors. The objective offers full leverage of the performance/compatibility tradeoff across different datasets, enabling more compatible yet accurate updates.

We propose Black Box Explanations through Transparent Approximations (BETA), a novel model agnostic framework for explaining the behavior of any black-box classi er by simultaneously optimizing for delity to the original model and interpretability of the explanation. To this end, we develop a novel objective function which allows us to learn (with optimality guarantees), a small number of compact decision sets each of which explains the behavior of the black box model in unambiguous, well-de ned regions of feature space. Furthermore, our framework also is capable of accepting user input when generating these approximations, thus allowing users to interactively explore how the black-box model behaves in di erent subspaces that are of interest to the user. To the best of our knowledge, this is the rst approach which can produce global explanations of the behavior of any given black box model through joint optimization of unambiguity, delity, and interpretability, while also allowing users to explore model behavior based on their preferences. Experimental evaluation with realworld datasets and user studies demonstrates that our approach can generate highly compact, easy-to-understand, yet accurate approximations of various kinds of predictive models compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

organizations are pairing humans with AI systems to improve decision-making and reducing costs. Proponents of human-centered AI argue that team performance can even further improve when the AI model explains its recommendations. However, a careful analysis of existing literature reveals that prior studies observed improvements due to explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best human-AI team. This raises an important question: can explanations lead to complementary performance, i.e., with accuracy higher than both the human and the AI working alone?We address this question by devising comprehensive studies on human-AI teaming, where participants solve a task with help from an AI system without explanations and from one with varying types of AI explanation support. We carefully controlled to ensure comparable human and AI accuracy across experiments on three NLP datasets (two for sentiment analysis and one for question answering). While we found complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by state-of-the-art explanations compared to simpler strategies, such as displaying the AI's confidence. We show that explanations increase the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation regardless of whether the AI is correct. While this clarifies the gains in team performance from explanations in prior work, it poses new challenges for human-centered AI: how can we best design systems to produce complementary performance? Can we develop explanatory approaches that help humans decide whether and when to trust AI input? CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI; Interactive systems and tools;• Computing methodologies → Machine learning.