Gathering information about AI systems is essential for contesting their use; it forms the basis of arguments about how and to what extent AI is causing harm. Information thus plays a central role for advocates like lawyers, journalists, and auditors contesting harmful AI systems. However, there is little systematic understanding of how these actors, many of whom are newly encountering AI in their advocacy work, access and use information effectively in this process. Understanding this information work can offer valuable insights for supporting effective contestation of harmful AI systems—work that is typically taken on by underresourced advocacy groups to begin with. To better understand information work in AI contestation, we interviewed 18 advocates in the United States (US) who have contested the use of AI in high-stakes domains, such as public benefits and housing. We characterize advocates’ strategies for accessing information that is useful for contestation, including a range of creative yet resource-intensive and risky workarounds that they use to overcome opacity. We discuss implications of our findings for the effectiveness of popular transparency policy strategies in the US and offer additional ways to support the social fabric that makes advocates’ information work effective.

Policymakers have established that the ability to contest decisions made by or with algorithms is core to responsible artificial intelligence (AI). However, there has been a disconnect between research on contestability of algorithms, and what the situated practice of contestation looks like in contexts across the world, especially amongst communities on the margins. We address this gap through a qualitative study of follow-up and contestation in accessing public services for land ownership in rural India and affordable housing in the urban United States. We find there are significant barriers to exercising rights and contesting decisions, which intermediaries like NGO workers or lawyers work with communities to address. We draw on the notion of accompaniment in global health to highlight the open-ended work required to support people in navigating violent social systems. We discuss the implications of our findings for key aspects of contestability, including building capacity for contestation, human review, and the role of explanations. We also discuss how sociotechnical systems of algorithmic decision-making can embody accompaniment by taking on a higher burden of preventing denials and enabling contestation.

As post hoc explanation methods are increasingly being leveraged to explain complex models in high-stakes settings, it becomes critical to ensure that the quality of the resulting explanations is consistently high across all subgroups of a population. For instance, it should not be the case that explanations associated with instances belonging to, e.g., women, are less accurate than those associated with other genders. In this work, we initiate the study of identifying group-based disparities in explanation quality. To this end, we first outline several key properties that contribute to explanation quality-namely, fidelity (accuracy), stability, consistency, and sparsity-and discuss why and how disparities in these properties can be particularly problematic. We then propose an evaluation framework which can quantitatively measure disparities in the quality of explanations. Using this framework, we carry out an empirical analysis with three datasets, six post hoc explanation methods, and different model classes to understand if and when group-based disparities in explanation quality arise. Our results indicate that such disparities are more likely to occur when the models being explained are complex and non-linear. We also observe that certain post hoc explanation methods (e.g., Integrated Gradients, SHAP) are more likely to exhibit disparities. Our work sheds light on previously unexplored ways in which explanation methods may introduce unfairness in real world decision making.

As machine learning (ML) models becomemore widely deployed in high-stakes applications, counterfactual explanations have emerged as key tools for providing actionable model explanations in practice. Despite the growing popularity of counterfactual explanations, the theoretical understanding of these explanations is still lacking behind. In this work, we systematically analyze counterfactual explanations through the lens of adversarial examples. We do so by formalizing the similarities between popular counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods identifying conditions when they are equivalent. We then derive upper bounds between the solutions output by counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods, which we validate on several real world data sets. By establishing these theoretical and empirical similarities between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples, our work raises fundamental questions about the design and development of existing counterfactual explanation algorithms.

We consider a novel variant of the contextual bandit problem (i.e., the multi-armed bandit with side-information, or context, available to a decision-maker) where the reward associated with each context-based decision may not always be observed (“missing rewards”). This new problem is motivated by certain online settings including clinical trial and ad recommendation applications. In order to address the missing rewards setting, we propose to combine the standard contextual bandit approach with an unsupervised learning mechanism such as clustering. Unlike standard contextual bandit methods, by leveraging clustering to estimate missing reward, we are able to learn from each incoming event, even those with missing rewards. Promising empirical results are obtained on several real-life datasets.

Building multi-domain AI agents is a challenging task and an open problem in the area of AI. Within the domain of dialog, the ability to orchestrate multiple independently trained dialog agents, or skills, to create a unified system is of particular significance. In this work, we study the task of online posterior dialog orchestration, where we define posterior orchestration as the task of selecting a subset of skills which most appropriately answer a user input using features extracted from both the user input and the individual skills. To account for the various costs associated with extracting skill features, we consider online posterior orchestration under a skill execution budget. We formalize this setting as Context Attentive Bandit with Observations (CABO), a variant of context attentive bandits, and evaluate it on proprietary conversational datasets.

In this paper, we analyze and extend an online learning frame-work known as Context-Attentive Bandit, motivated by various practical applications, from medical diagnosis to dialog systems, where due to observation costs only a small subset of a potentially large number of context variables can be observed at each iteration; however, the agent has a freedom to choose which variables to observe. We derive a novel algorithm, called Context-Attentive Thompson Sampling (CATS), which builds upon the Linear Thompson Sampling approach, adapting it to Context-Attentive Bandit setting. We provide a theoretical regret analysis and an extensive empirical evaluation demonstrating advantages of the proposed approach over several baseline methods on a variety of real-life datasets.

As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in critical domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there has been a growing emphasis on developing techniques for explaining these black boxes in a post hoc manner. In this work, we analyze two popular post hoc interpretation techniques: SmoothGrad which is a gradient based method, and a variant of LIME which is a perturbation based method. More specifically, we derive explicit closed form expressions for the explanations output by these two methods and show that they both converge to the same explanation in expectation, i.e., when the number of perturbed samples used by these methods is large. We then leverage this connection to establish other desirable properties, such as robustness, for these techniques. We also derive finite sample complexity bounds for the number of perturbations required for these methods to converge to their expected explanation. Finally, we empirically validate our theory using extensive experimentation on both synthetic and real-world datasets.

In various recommender system applications, from medical diagnosis to dialog systems, due to observation costs only a small subset of a potentially large number of context variables can be observed at each iteration; however, the agent has a freedom to choose which variables to observe. In this paper, we analyze and extend an online learning framework known as Context-Attentive Bandit, We derive a novel algorithm, called Context-Attentive Thompson Sampling (CATS), which builds upon the Linear Thompson Sampling approach, adapting it to Context-Attentive Bandit setting. We provide a theoretical regret analysis and an extensive empirical evaluation demonstrating advantages of the proposed approach over several baseline methods on a variety of real-life datasets.

As predictive models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes decision making (e.g., loan approvals), there has been growing interest in post-hoc techniques which provide recourse to affected individuals. These techniques generate recourses under the assumption that the underlying predictive model does not change. However, in practice, models are often regularly updated for a variety of reasons (e.g., dataset shifts), thereby rendering previously prescribed recourses ineffective.To address this problem, we propose a novel framework, RObust Algorithmic Recourse (ROAR), that leverages adversarial training for finding recourses that are robust to model shifts. To the best of our knowledge, this work proposes the first ever solution to this critical problem. We also carry out theoretical analysis which underscores the importance of constructing recourses that are robust to model shifts: 1) We quantify the probability of invalidation for recourses generated without accounting for model shifts. 2) We prove that the additional cost incurred due to the robust recourses output by our framework is bounded. Experimental evaluation on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework.