Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Transparency: Motivations and Challenges

verfasst von : Adrian Weller

Erschienen in: Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Transparency is often deemed critical to enable effective real-world deployment of intelligent systems. Yet the motivations for and benefits of different types of transparency can vary significantly depending on context, and objective measurement criteria are difficult to identify. We provide a brief survey, suggesting challenges and related concerns, particularly when agents have misaligned interests. We highlight and review settings where transparency may cause harm, discussing connections across privacy, multi-agent game theory, economics, fairness and trust.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Nächstes Kapitel Interpretability in Intelligent Systems – A New Concept?
Fußnoten
1
Greater faithfulness of an explanation may challenge the ability of its audience to understand it well, perhaps requiring a greater investment of time and effort [54].
 
2
One view is that if rules are set up correctly, then transparency will not lead to ‘gaming’ since agents optimizing their own objectives subject to the rules will necessarily lead to a good outcome for all. However, it is often very challenging in practice to get the rules exactly right in this way – thus there may be a distinction between the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit’ of the law. See Sect. 2.4 for a related example.
 
3
Consider \(c(x)= {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 10x &{} x \le 3\\ 30 &{} 3 \le x \le 3+\epsilon \\ 10(x-\epsilon ) &{} 3+\epsilon \le x. \end{array}\right. }\).
 
Literatur
1.
Adel, T., Ghahramani, Z., Weller, A.: Discovering interpretable representations for both deep generative and discriminative models. In: ICML (2018)
2.
Adelberg, A.: Narrative disclosures contained in financial reports: means of communication or manipulation? Acc. Bus. Res. 9(35), 179–190 (1979)CrossRef
3.
Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., Mané, D.: Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint. arXiv:​1606.​06565 (2016)
4.
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., Kirchner, L.: Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica, May 2016
5.
Arrow, K., Debreu, G.: Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 22, 265–290 (1954)MathSciNetCrossRef
6.
Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (2006)MATH
7.
Bach, S., Binder, A., Montavon, G., Klauschen, F., Müller, K.R., Samek, W.: On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation. PLoS ONE 10(7), e0130140 (2015)CrossRef
8.
Barocas, S., Selbst, A.: Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. Law Rev. 104(3), 671–732 (2016)
9.
Bernstein, E.: The transparency trap. Harv. Bus. Rev. 92(10), 58–66 (2014)
10.
Braess, D.: Über ein paradoxon aus der verkehrsplanung. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 12(1), 258–268 (1968)CrossRef
11.
Chen, X., Duan, Y., Houthooft, R., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., Abbeel, P.: InfoGAN: interpretable representation learning by information maximizing generative adversarial nets. In: NeurIPS (2016)
12.
Coldewey, D.: Bulgaria now requires (some) government software be open source. TechCrunch, July 2016
13.
Cole, D.: We kill people based on metadata. The New York Review of Books, May 2014
14.
Dabkowski, P., Gal, Y.: Real time image saliency for black box classifiers. In: NeurIPS (2017)
15.
Datta, A., Sen, S., Zick, Y.: Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: theory and experiments with learning systems. In: 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 598–617. IEEE (2016)
16.
Doshi-Velez, F., Kim, B.: Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. CoRR abs/1702.08608 (2017)
17.
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O.: Fairness through awareness. In: ITCSC (2012)
18.
19.
Etzioni, A.: Is transparency the best disinfectant? J. Polit. Philos. 18(4), 389–404 (2010)CrossRef
20.
Evtimova, K., Drozdov, A., Kiela, D., Cho, K.: Emergent communication in a multi-modal, multi-step referential game. In: ICLR (2018)
21.
Feldman, M., Friedler, S.A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S.: Certifying and removing disparate impact. In: KDD (2015)
22.
23.
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., Medvec, V.: The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75(2), 332 (1998)CrossRef
24.
Grgić-Hlača, N., Zafar, M.B., Gummadi, K.P., Weller, A.: On fairness, diversity and randomness in algorithmic decision making. In: FAT/ML Workshop at KDD (2017)
25.
Griffin, D., Ross, L.: Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24, 319–359 (1991)
26.
27.
Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: NeurIPS (2016)
28.
Havrylov, S., Titov, I.: Emergence of language with multi-agent games: learning to communicate with sequences of symbols. arXiv preprint. arXiv:​1705.​11192 (2017)
29.
Higgins, I., et al.: beta-VAE: learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In: ICLR (2017)
30.
Horling, B., Lesser, V.: A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19(4), 281–316 (2004)CrossRef
31.
Joseph, M., Kearns, M., Morgenstern, J., Roth, A.: Fairness in learning: classic and contextual bandits. In: NeurIPS (2016)
32.
Kelly, F.: Network routing. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 337(1647), 343–367 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRef
33.
Kilbertus, N., Gascón, A., Kusner, M.J., Veale, M., Gummadi, K.P., Weller, A.: Blind justice: fairness with encrypted sensitive attributes. In: ICML (2018)
34.
Koh, P.W., Liang, P.: Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In: ICML (2017)
35.
Lakkaraju, H., Bach, S., Leskovec, J.: Interpretable decision sets: a joint framework for description and prediction. In: KDD, pp. 1675–1684. ACM (2016)
36.
Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W., Hart, O., Perry, G.L.: The structure and performance of the money management industry. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. Microecon. 1992, 339–391 (1992)CrossRef
37.
Langer, E., Blank, A., Chanowitz, B.: The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: the role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36(6), 635–642 (1978)CrossRef
38.
Lawrence, N.: Living together: mind and machine intelligence. CoRR abs/1705. 07996 (2017)
39.
40.
Lerner, J., Tetlock, P.: Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol. Bull. 125(2), 255 (1999)CrossRef
41.
Levine, E., Schweitzer, M.: Prosocial lies: when deception breeds trust. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 126, 88–106 (2015)CrossRef
42.
Lipton, Z.: The mythos of model interpretability. In: ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning, New York, NY, pp. 96–100 (2016)
43.
44.
Lowenstein, L.: Financial transparency and corporate governance: you manage what you measure. Columbia Law Rev. 96(5), 1335–1362 (1996)CrossRef
45.
Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.I.: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: NeurIPS (2017)
46.
McAllister, R., et al.: Concrete problems for autonomous vehicle safety: advantages of Bayesian deep learning. In: IJCAI (2017)
47.
Mordatch, I., Abbeel, P.: Emergence of grounded compositional language in multi-agent populations. In: AAAI (2018)
48.
Mortier, R., Haddadi, H., Henderson, T., McAuley, D., Crowcroft, J.: Human-data interaction: the human face of the data-driven society. Social Science Research Network (2014)
49.
O’Neill, O.: What we don’t understand about trust. TED talk, June 2013
50.
51.
Peled, A.: When transparency and collaboration collide: the USA open data program. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62(11), 2085–2094 (2011)CrossRef
52.
Peters, J., Janzing, D., Schölkopf, B.: Elements of Causal Inference - Foundations and Learning Algorithms. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)MATH
53.
Prat, A.: The wrong kind of transparency. Am. Econ. Rev. 95(3), 862–877 (2005)CrossRef
54.
Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., Guestrin, C.: Why should I trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: KDD (2016)
55.
Ross, S.A.: The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. Am. Econ. Rev. 63(2), 134–139 (1973)
56.
57.
Rudin, C.: Please stop explaining black box models for high stakes decisions. In: NeurIPS Workshop on Critiquing and Correcting Trends in Machine Learning (2018)
58.
Rudin, C., Ustun, B.: Optimized scoring systems: toward trust in machine learning for healthcare and criminal justice. Interfaces 48(5), 449–466 (2018)CrossRef
59.
Samek, W., Binder, A., Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Müller, K.R.: Evaluating the visualization of what a deep neural network has learned. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. 28(11), 2660–2673 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRef
60.
61.
Solove, D.: Privacy and power: computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Rev. 53(6), 1393–1462 (2001)CrossRef
62.
Solove, D.: Why privacy matters even if you have ‘nothing to hide’. Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 May 2011
63.
Sridhar, D., Batniji, R.: Misfinancing global health: a case for transparency in disbursements and decision making. Lancet 372(9644), 1185–1191 (2008)CrossRef
64.
Štrumbelj, E., Kononenko, I.: Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 41(3), 647–665 (2014)CrossRef
65.
Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., Yan, Q.: Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In: ICML (2017)
66.
Tishby, N., Pereira, F., Bialek, W.: The information bottleneck method. In: Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (1999)
67.
Varshney, K.R., Alemzadeh, H.: On the safety of machine learning: cyber-physical systems, decision sciences, and data products. Big Data 5(3), 246–255 (2017)CrossRef
68.
Varshney, L., Varshney, K.: Decision making with quantized priors leads to discrimination. Proc. IEEE 105(2), 241–255 (2017)CrossRef
69.
Vishwanath, T., Kaufmann, D.: Toward transparency: new approaches and their application to financial markets. World Bank Res. Obs. 16(1), 41–57 (2001)CrossRef
70.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C.: Counterfactual explanations withoutopening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR. Harv. J. Law Technol. 31(2), 841 (2018)
71.
Weller, A.: Challenges for transparency. In: ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability (2017)
72.
Wiggers, K.: New York City announces task force to find biases in algorithms. VentureBeat, May 2018
73.
Wiley, R.: The evolution of communication: information and manipulation. Anim. Behav. 2, 156–189 (1983)
74.
Zafar, M.B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M.G., Gummadi, K.P., Weller, A.: From parity to preference-based notions of fairness in classification. In: NeurIPS (2017)
75.
Zintgraf, L., Cohen, T., Adel, T., Welling, M.: Visualizing deep neural network decisions: prediction difference analysis. In: ICLR (2017)
Metadaten
Titel
Transparency: Motivations and Challenges
verfasst von
Adrian Weller
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Buch
Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28953-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-28954-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_2