Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection
476
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Vivian Lai
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Humans are the final decision makers in critical tasks that involve ethical and legal concerns, ranging from recidivism prediction, to medical diagnosis, to fighting against fake news. Although machine learning models can sometimes achieve impressive performance in these tasks, these tasks are not amenable to full automation. To realize the potential of machine learning for improving human decisions, it is important to understand how assistance from machine learning models affects human performance and human agency. In this paper, we use deception detection as a testbed and investigate how we can harness explanations and predictions of machine learning models to improve human performance while retaining human agency. We propose a spectrum between full human agency and full automation, and develop varying levels of machine assistance along the spectrum that gradually increase the influence of machine predictions. We find that without showing predicted labels, explanations alone slightly improve human performance in the end task. In comparison, human performance is greatly improved by showing predicted labels (>20% relative improvement) and can be further improved by explicitly suggesting strong machine performance. Interestingly, when predicted labels are shown, explanations of machine predictions induce a similar level of accuracy as an explicit statement of strong machine performance. Our results demonstrate a tradeoff between human performance and human agency and show that explanations of machine predictions can moderate this tradeoff.
rate research
Read More
When might human input help (or not) when assessing risk in fairness domains? Dressel and Farid (2018) asked Mechanical Turk workers to evaluate a subset of defendants in the ProPublica COMPAS data for risk of recidivism, and concluded that COMPAS predictions were no more accurate or fair than predictions made by humans. We delve deeper into this claim to explore differences in human and algorithmic decision making. We construct a Human Risk Score based on the predictions made by multiple Turk workers, characterize the features that determine agreement and disagreement between COMPAS and Human Scores, and construct hybrid Human+Machine models to predict recidivism. Our key finding is that on this data set, Human and COMPAS decision making differed, but not in ways that could be leveraged to significantly improve ground-truth prediction. We present the results of our analyses and suggestions for data collection best practices to leverage complementary strengths of human and machines in the fairness domain.
We investigate a deep reinforcement learning (RL) architecture that supports explaining why a learned agent prefers one action over another. The key idea is to learn action-values that are directly represented via human-understandable properties of expected futures. This is realized via the embedded self-prediction (ESP)model, which learns said properties in terms of human provided features. Action preferences can then be explained by contrasting the future properties predicted for each action. To address cases where there are a large number of features, we develop a novel method for computing minimal sufficient explanations from anESP. Our case studies in three domains, including a complex strategy game, show that ESP models can be effectively learned and support insightful explanations.
Machine learning models that offer excellent predictive performance often lack the interpretability necessary to support integrated human machine decision-making. In clinical medicine and other high-risk settings, domain experts may be unwilling to trust model predictions without explanations. Work in explainable AI must balance competing objectives along two different axes: 1) Explanations must balance faithfulness to the models decision-making with their plausibility to a domain expert. 2) Domain experts desire local explanations of individual predictions and global explanations of behavior in aggregate. We propose to train a proxy model that mimics the behavior of the trained model and provides fine-grained control over these trade-offs. We evaluate our approach on the task of assigning ICD codes to clinical notes to demonstrate that explanations from the proxy model are faithful and replicate the trained model behavior.
A growing effort in NLP aims to build datasets of human explanations. However, the term explanation encompasses a broad range of notions, each with different properties and ramifications. Our goal is to provide an overview of diverse types of explanations and human limitations, and discuss implications for collecting and using explanations in NLP. Inspired by prior work in psychology and cognitive sciences, we group existing human explanations in NLP into three categories: proximal mechanism, evidence, and procedure. These three types differ in nature and have implications for the resultant explanations. For instance, procedure is not considered explanations in psychology and connects with a rich body of work on learning from instructions. The diversity of explanations is further evidenced by proxy questions that are needed for annotators to interpret and answer open-ended why questions. Finally, explanations may require different, often deeper, understandings than predictions, which casts doubt on whether humans can provide useful explanations in some tasks.
Machine learning techniques have deeply rooted in our everyday life. However, since it is knowledge- and labor-intensive to pursue good learning performance, human experts are heavily involved in every aspect of machine learning. In order to make machine learning techniques easier to apply and reduce the demand for experienced human experts, automated machine learning (AutoML) has emerged as a hot topic with both industrial and academic interest. In this paper, we provide an up to date survey on AutoML. First, we introduce and define the AutoML problem, with inspiration from both realms of automation and machine learning. Then, we propose a general AutoML framework that not only covers most existing approaches to date but also can guide the design for new methods. Subsequently, we categorize and review the existing works from two aspects, i.e., the problem setup and the employed techniques. Finally, we provide a detailed analysis of AutoML approaches and explain the reasons underneath their successful applications. We hope this survey can serve as not only an insightful guideline for AutoML beginners but also an inspiration for future research.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
