Black box machine learning models are currently being used for high-stakes decision making throughout society, causing problems in healthcare, criminal justice and other domains. Some people hope that creating methods for explaining these black box models will alleviate some of the problems, but trying to explain black box models, rather than creating models that are interpretable in the first place, is likely to perpetuate bad practice and can potentially cause great harm to society. The way forward is to design models that are inherently interpretable. This Perspective clarifies the chasm between explaining black boxes and using inherently interpretable models, outlines several key reasons why explainable black boxes should be avoided in high-stakes decisions, identifies challenges to interpretable machine learning, and provides several example applications where interpretable models could potentially replace black box models in criminal justice, healthcare and computer vision. There has been a recent rise of interest in developing methods for ‘explainable AI’, where models are created to explain how a first ‘black box’ machine learning model arrives at a specific decision. It can be argued that instead efforts should be directed at building inherently interpretable models in the first place, in particular where they are applied in applications that directly affect human lives, such as in healthcare and criminal justice.

Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI

In recent years, many accurate decision support systems have been constructed as black boxes, that is as systems that hide their internal logic to the user. This lack of explanation constitutes both a practical and an ethical issue. The literature reports many approaches aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness, sometimes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy for interpretability. The applications in which black box decision systems can be used are various, and each approach is typically developed to provide a solution for a specific problem and, as a consequence, it explicitly or implicitly delineates its own definition of interpretability and explanation. The aim of this article is to provide a classification of the main problems addressed in the literature with respect to the notion of explanation and the type of black box system. Given a problem definition, a black box type, and a desired explanation, this survey should help the researcher to find the proposals more useful for his own work. The proposed classification of approaches to open black box models should also be useful for putting the many research open questions in perspective.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3236009

A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models

As machine learning systems become ubiquitous, there has been a surge of interest in interpretable machine learning: systems that provide explanation for their outputs. These explanations are often used to qualitatively assess other criteria such as safety or non-discrimination. However, despite the interest in interpretability, there is very little consensus on what interpretable machine learning is and how it should be measured. In this position paper, we first define interpretability and describe when interpretability is needed (and when it is not). Next, we suggest a taxonomy for rigorous evaluation and expose open questions towards a more rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.

Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning

In the last years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has achieved a notable momentum that may deliver the best of expectations over many application sectors across the field. For this to occur, the entire community stands in front of the barrier of explainability, an inherent problem of AI techniques brought by sub-symbolism (e.g. ensembles or Deep Neural Networks) that were not present in the last hype of AI. Paradigms underlying this problem fall within the so-called eXplainable AI (XAI) field, which is acknowledged as a crucial feature for the practical deployment of AI models. This overview examines the existing literature in the field of XAI, including a prospect toward what is yet to be reached. We summarize previous efforts to define explainability in Machine Learning, establishing a novel definition that covers prior conceptual propositions with a major focus on the audience for which explainability is sought. We then propose and discuss about a taxonomy of recent contributions related to the explainability of different Machine Learning models, including those aimed at Deep Learning methods for which a second taxonomy is built. This literature analysis serves as the background for a series of challenges faced by XAI, such as the crossroads between data fusion and explainability. Our prospects lead toward the concept of Responsible Artificial Intelligence, namely, a methodology for the large-scale implementation of AI methods in real organizations with fairness, model explainability and accountability at its core. Our ultimate goal is to provide newcomers to XAI with a reference material in order to stimulate future research advances, but also to encourage experts and professionals from other disciplines to embrace the benefits of AI in their activity sectors, without any prior bias for its lack of interpretability.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI.

We summarize the potential impact that the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation will have on the routine use of machine learning algorithms. Slated to take effect as law across the EU in 2018, it will restrict automated individual decision-making (that is, algorithms that make decisions based on user-level predictors) which “significantly affect” users. The law will also effectively create a “right to explanation,” whereby a user can ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision that was made about them. We argue that while this law will pose large challenges for industry, it highlights opportunities for computer scientists to take the lead in designing algorithms and evaluation frameworks which avoid discrimination and enable explanation.

/pdf/european-union-regulations-on-algorithmic-decision-making-66w9rc75zo.pdf

European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a “Right to Explanation”

We summarize the potential impact that the European Union's new General Data Protection Regulation will have on the routine use of machine learning algorithms. Slated to take effect as law across the EU in 2018, it will restrict automated individual decision-making (that is, algorithms that make decisions based on user-level predictors) which "significantly affect" users. The law will also effectively create a "right to explanation," whereby a user can ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision that was made about them. We argue that while this law will pose large challenges for industry, it highlights opportunities for computer scientists to take the lead in designing algorithms and evaluation frameworks which avoid discrimination and enable explanation.

EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation".

We present xBD, a new, large-scale dataset for the advancement of change detection and building damage assessment for humanitarian assistance and disaster recovery research. Natural disaster response requires an accurate understanding of damaged buildings in an affected region. Current response strategies require in-person damage assessments within 24-48 hours of a disaster. Massive potential exists for using aerial imagery combined with computer vision algorithms to assess damage and reduce the potential danger to human life. In collaboration with multiple disaster response agencies, xBD provides pre- and post-event satellite imagery across a variety of disaster events with building polygons, ordinal labels of damage level, and corresponding satellite metadata. Furthermore, the dataset contains bounding boxes and labels for environmental factors such as fire, water, and smoke. xBD is the largest building damage assessment dataset to date, containing 850,736 building annotations across 45,362 km\textsuperscript{2} of imagery.

xBD: A Dataset for Assessing Building Damage from Satellite Imagery

We present a preliminary report for xBD, a new large-scale dataset for the advancement of change detection and building damage assessment for humanitarian assistance and disaster recovery research.Logistics, resource planning, and damage estimation are difficult tasks after a disaster, and putting first responders into post-disaster situations is dangerous and costly.Using passive methods, such as analysis on satellite imagery, to perform damage assessment saves manpower, lowers risk, and expedites an otherwise dangerous process.xBD provides pre- and post-event multi-band satellite imagery from a variety of disaster events with building polygons, classification labels for damage types, ordinal labels of damage level, and corresponding satellite metadata.Furthermore, the dataset contains bounding boxes and labels for environmental factors such as fire, water, and smoke.xBD will be the largest building damage assessment dataset to date, containing $\sim$700,000 building annotations across over 5,000 km\textsuperscript{2} of imagery from 15 countries.

/pdf/creating-xbd-a-dataset-for-assessing-building-damage-from-1xjkhhrjne.pdf

Creating xBD: A Dataset for Assessing Building Damage from Satellite Imagery

Advances in full genome sequencing have led to a practical and ethical conflict between protecting genetic privacy and large-scale genomic research. This chapter concerns the value of genetic privacy, and consists of both a negative and positive claim. The negative claim is that genetic privacy is not intrinsically valuable, and that the barriers to genomic research posed by an unqualified right to genetic privacy are not justified. The positive claim is that genetic research is supported by the principle of respect for autonomy.

Bryce Goodman

Papers

European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a “Right to Explanation”

EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation".

xBD: A Dataset for Assessing Building Damage from Satellite Imagery

Creating xBD: A Dataset for Assessing Building Damage from Satellite Imagery

What’s Wrong with the Right to Genetic Privacy: Beyond Exceptionalism, Parochialism and Adventitious Ethics