Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Causal Perception (2401.13408v2)

Published 24 Jan 2024 in cs.AI, cs.CY, and cs.HC

Abstract: Perception occurs when two individuals interpret the same information differently. Despite being a known phenomenon with implications for bias in decision-making, as individual experience determines interpretation, perception remains largely overlooked in ML research. Modern decision flows, whether partially or fully automated, involve human experts interacting with ML applications. How might we then, e.g., account for two experts that interpret differently a deferred instance or an explanation from a ML model? To account for perception, we first need to formulate it. In this work, we define perception under causal reasoning using structural causal models (SCM). Our framework formalizes individual experience as additional causal knowledge that comes with and is used by a human expert (read, decision maker). We present two kinds of causal perception, unfaithful and inconsistent, based on the SCM properties of faithfulness and consistency. Further, we motivate the importance of perception within fairness problems. We illustrate our framework through a series of decision flow examples involving ML applications and human experts.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (68)
  1. José M. Álvarez and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2023. Counterfactual Situation Testing: Uncovering Discrimination under Fairness given the Difference. In EAAMO. ACM, 2:1–2:11.
  2. Binyamin Appelbaum. 2019. The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society. Little Brown.
  3. Bias on Demand: A Modelling Framework That Generates Synthetic Data With Bias. In FAccT. ACM, 1002–1013.
  4. Approximate Causal Abstractions. In UAI (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 115). AUAI Press, 606–615.
  5. Yoshua Bengio. 2019. NeurIPS 2019 Posner Lecture: From System 1 Deep Learning to System 2 Deep Learning. https://nips.cc/Conferences/2019/ScheduleMultitrack?event=15488.
  6. Arguments Using Ontological and Causal Knowledge. In FoIKS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8367). Springer, 79–96.
  7. Camiel J. Beukeboom and Christian Burgers. 2019. How stereotypes are shared through language: A review and introduction of the Social Categories and Stereotypes Communication (SCSC) Framework. Review of Communication Research 7 (2019), 1–37.
  8. Causal Discovery for Fairness. In AFCP (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 214). PMLR, 7–22.
  9. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 1997. Rethinking Racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American Sociological Review (1997), 465–480.
  10. Thinking Fast and Slow in AI. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 15042–15046.
  11. G.C. Bowker and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press.
  12. Ana Karina Caraban and Evangelos Karapanos. 2020. The ’23 ways to nudge’ framework: designing technologies that influence behavior subtly. Interactions 27, 5 (2020), 54–58.
  13. Fairness through awareness. In ITCS. ACM, 214–226.
  14. Thomas R. Gruber. 1995. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43 (1995), 907–928.
  15. Factual and Counterfactual Explanations for Black Box Decision Making. IEEE Intell. Syst. 34, 6 (2019), 14–23.
  16. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 5 (2019), 93:1–93:42.
  17. Daniel S Hamermesh. 2018. Citations in economics: Measurement, uses, and impacts. Journal of Economic Literature 56, 1 (2018), 115–156.
  18. Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. In FAT*. ACM, 501–512.
  19. Knowledge Graphs. 54, 4 (2021).
  20. Lily Hu and Issa Kohler-Hausmann. 2020. What’s sex got to do with machine learning?. In FAT*. ACM, 513.
  21. Gabbrielle M Johnson. 2020. The structure of bias. Mind 129, 516 (2020), 1193–1236.
  22. An Algorithmic Framework for Fairness Elicitation. In FORC (LIPIcs, Vol. 192). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2:1–2:19.
  23. Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  24. Daniel Kahneman. 2021. NeurIPS 2021: A Conversation on Human and Machine Intelligence. https://nips.cc/virtual/2021/invited-talk/22284.
  25. Daniel Kahneman and Dale T Miller. 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93, 2 (1986), 136–153.
  26. Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. William Collins.
  27. Atoosa Kasirzadeh and Andrew Smart. 2021. The Use and Misuse of Counterfactuals in Ethical Machine Learning. In FAccT. ACM, 228–236.
  28. The Sensitivity of Counterfactual Fairness to Unmeasured Confounding. In UAI (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 115). AUAI Press, 616–626.
  29. Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms. CoRR abs/1902.03731 (2019).
  30. Issa Kohler-Hausmann. 2019. Eddie Murphy and the Dangers of Counterfactual Causal Thinking About Detecting Racial Discrimination. Northwestern University Law Review 113, 5 (2019), 1163.
  31. Counterfactual Fairness. In NIPS. 4066–4076.
  32. The Variational Fair Autoencoder. In ICLR.
  33. Glenn Loury. 2019. Why Does Racial Inequality Persist? Culture, Causation, and Responsibility. The Manhattan Institute (2019).
  34. Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable Representations. In ICML (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80). PMLR, 3381–3390.
  35. Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notions. CoRR abs/2010.09553 (2020).
  36. Ron Mallon. 2007. A field guide to social construction. Philosophy Compass 2, 1 (2007), 93–108.
  37. Causal Abstraction with Soft Interventions. In CLeaR (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 213). PMLR, 68–87.
  38. Costs and Benefits of Fair Representation Learning. In AIES. ACM, 263–270.
  39. Fairness Implications of Encoding Protected Categorical Attributes. In AIES. ACM, 454–465.
  40. Richard R Nelson. 2015. Physics envy: Get over it. Issues in Science and Technology 31, 3 (2015), 71–78.
  41. Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  42. Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie. 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books.
  43. Meaningful Explanations of Black Box AI Decision Systems. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 9780–9784.
  44. Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms. The MIT Press.
  45. Rik Pieters and Hans Baumgartner. 2002. Who talks to whom? Intra-and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature 40, 2 (2002), 483–509.
  46. Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW1 (2022), 83:1–83:22.
  47. Causal Consistency of Structural Equation Models. In UAI. AUAI Press.
  48. Can We Trust Fair-AI?. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 15421–15430.
  49. When Worlds Collide: Integrating Different Counterfactual Assumptions in Fairness. In NIPS. 6414–6423.
  50. Causal Relational Learning. In SIGMOD Conference. ACM, 241–256.
  51. Bernhard Schölkopf. 2022. Causality for Machine Learning. In Probabilistic and Causal Inference. ACM Books, Vol. 36. ACM, 765–804.
  52. Towards Causal Representation Learning. CoRR abs/2102.11107 (2021).
  53. Maya Sen and Omar Wasow. 2016. Race as a bundle of sticks: Designs that estimate effects of seemingly immutable characteristics. Annual Review of Political Science 19, 1 (2016), 499–522.
  54. Too much Maths, too little History: The problem of Economics. YouTube Link. This is a recording of the debate hosted by the LSE Economic History Department.
  55. Joel Sobel. 2020. Signaling Games. Complex Social and Behavioral Systems: Game Theory and Agent-Based Models (2020), 251–268.
  56. Michael Spence. 1973. Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87, 3 (1973), 355–374.
  57. Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning. In KDD. ACM, 2459–2468.
  58. Katya Tentori. 2022. What Can the Conjunction Fallacy Tell Us about Human Reasoning? In Human-Like Machine Intelligence. Oxford University Press, 449–464.
  59. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.
  60. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185, 4157 (1974), 1124–1131.
  61. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. Judgments of and by Representativeness. Technical Report 3. Defense Technical Information Center.
  62. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1983. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90, 4 (1983), 293.
  63. Yixin Wang and Michael I. Jordan. 2021. Desiderata for Representation Learning: A Causal Perspective. CoRR abs/2109.03795 (2021).
  64. Ludwig Wittgenstein. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, NY, USA.
  65. James Woodward. 2005. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford university press.
  66. A Human-in-the-loop Framework to Construct Context-aware Mathematical Notions of Outcome Fairness. In AIES. ACM, 1023–1033.
  67. The Inner Loop of Collective Human–Machine Intelligence. Topics in Cognitive Science (2023).
  68. Learning Fair Representations. In ICML (3) (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 28). JMLR.org, 325–333.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Whiteboard

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 4 tweets with 8 likes about this paper.