skip to main content
10.1145/3461702.3462467acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaiesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Causality in Neural Networks - An Extended Abstract

Published:30 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Causal reasoning is the main learning and explanation tool used by humans. AI systems should possess causal reasoning capabilities to be deployed in the real world with trust and reliability. Introducing the ideas of causality to machine learning helps in providing better learning and explainable models. Explainability, causal disentanglement are some important aspects of any machine learning model. Causal explanations are required to believe in a model's decision and causal disentanglement learning is important for transfer learning applications. We exploit the ideas of causality to be used in deep learning models to achieve better and causally explainable models that are useful in fairness, disentangled representation, etc.

References

  1. Aditya Chattopadhyay, Piyushi Manupriya, Anirban Sarkar, and Vineeth N Balasubramanian. 2019. Neural Network Attributions: A Causal Perspective. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Blender Online Community. 2018. Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package. http://www.blender.org. visited on 01-08--2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Li Deng and Dong Yu. 2014. Deep learning: methods and applications. Foundations and trends in signal processing, Vol. 7, 3--4 (2014), 197--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Freddy, Krishna Lecue, Sahin Gade, Cem, Krishnaram Geyik, Varun Kenthapadi, Ankur Mithal, Riccardo Taly, Pasquale Guidotti, and Minervini. [n.d.]. Tutorial on Explainable AI. https://xaitutorial2020.github.io/raw/master/slides/aaai_2020_xai_tutorial.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Muhammad Waleed Gondal, Manuel Wuthrich, Djordje Miladinovic, Francesco Locatello, Martin Breidt, Valentin Volchkov, Joel Akpo, Olivier Bachem, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Stefan Bauer. 2019. On the transfer of inductive bias from simulation to the real world: a new disentanglement dataset. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 15740--15751.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Khurram Javed, Martha White, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Learning Causal Models Online. arxiv: 2006.07461 [cs.LG]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jungseock Joo and Kimmo Kärkkäinen. 2020. Gender Slopes: Counterfactual Fairness for Computer Vision Models by Attribute Manipulation. arxiv: 2005.10430 [cs.CV]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Matt J. Kusner, Joshua R. Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual Fairness. arxiv: 1703.06856 [stat.ML]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Loic Matthey, Irina Higgins, Demis Hassabis, and Alexander Lerchner. 2017. dSprites: Disentanglement testing Sprites dataset. https://github.com/deepmind/dsprites-dataset/. visited on 2020-08-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David Nelson, Adriano M. Pereira, and Renato Alves de Oliveira. 2017. Stock market's price movement prediction with LSTM neural networks. 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (2017), 1419--1426.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Judea Pearl. 2001. Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence. 411--420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Peters, D. Janzing, and B. Schölkopf. 2017. Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, August 13--17, 2016 . 1135--1144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Peter J Sadowski, Daniel Whiteson, and Pierre Baldi. 2014. Searching for higgs boson decay modes with deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2393--2401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 618--626.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Shayak Sen, Piotr Mardziel, Anupam Datta, and Matthew Fredrikson. 2018. Supervising Feature Influence. arxiv: 1803.10815 [cs.LG]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Causality in Neural Networks - An Extended Abstract

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        AIES '21: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
        July 2021
        1077 pages
        ISBN:9781450384735
        DOI:10.1145/3461702

        Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 July 2021

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • extended-abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate61of162submissions,38%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader