Having insight into the causal associations in a complex system facilitates decision making, e.g., for medical treatments, urban infrastructure improvements or financial investments. The amount of observational data grows, which enables the discovery of causal relationships between variables from observation of their behaviour in time. Existing methods for causal discovery from time series data do not yet exploit the representational power of deep learning. We therefore present the Temporal Causal Discovery Framework (TCDF), a deep learning framework that learns a causal graph structure by discovering causal relationships in observational time series data. TCDF uses attention-based convolutional neural networks combined with a causal validation step. By interpreting the internal parameters of the convolutional networks, TCDF can also discover the time delay between a cause and the occurrence of its effect. Our framework learns temporal causal graphs, which can include confounders and instantaneous effects. Experiments on financial and neuroscientific benchmarks show state-of-the-art performance of TCDF on discovering causal relationships in continuous time series data. Furthermore, we show that TCDF can circumstantially discover the presence of hidden confounders. Our broadly applicable framework can be used to gain novel insights into the causal dependencies in a complex system, which is important for reliable predictions, knowledge discovery and data-driven decision making.

Figure 1: A ProtoTree is a globally interpretable model faithfully explaining its entire reasoning (left, partially shown).Additionally, the decision making process for a single prediction can be followed (right): the presence of a red chest and black wing, and the absence of a black stripe near the eye, identifies a Scarlet Tanager. A pruned ProtoTree learns roughly 200 prototypes for CUB (dataset with 200 bird species), making only 8 local decisions on average for one test image.

The rising popularity of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand high-performing black boxes, also raised the question of how to evaluate explanations of machine learning (ML) models. While interpretability and explainability are often presented as a subjectively validated binary property, we consider it a multi-faceted concept. We identify 12 conceptual properties, such as Compactness and Correctness, that should be evaluated for comprehensively assessing the quality of an explanation. Our so-called Co-12 properties serve as categorization scheme for systematically reviewing the evaluation practice of more than 300 papers published in the last 7 years at major AI and ML conferences that introduce an XAI method. We find that 1 in 3 papers evaluate exclusively with anecdotal evidence, and 1 in 5 papers evaluate with users. We also contribute to the call for objective, quantifiable evaluation methods by presenting an extensive overview of quantitative XAI evaluation methods. This systematic collection of evaluation methods provides researchers and practitioners with concrete tools to thoroughly validate, benchmark and compare new and existing XAI methods. This also opens up opportunities to include quantitative metrics as optimization criteria during model training in order to optimize for accuracy and interpretability simultaneously.

The rising popularity of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand high-performing black boxes raised the question of how to evaluate explanations of machine learning (ML) models. While interpretability and explainability are often presented as a subjectively validated binary property, we consider it a multi-faceted concept. We identify 12 conceptual properties, such as Compactness and Correctness, that should be evaluated for comprehensively assessing the quality of an explanation. Our so-called Co-12 properties serve as categorization scheme for systematically reviewing the evaluation practices of more than 300 papers published in the last 7 years at major AI and ML conferences that introduce an XAI method. We find that 1 in 3 papers evaluate exclusively with anecdotal evidence, and 1 in 5 papers evaluate with users. This survey also contributes to the call for objective, quantifiable evaluation methods by presenting an extensive overview of quantitative XAI evaluation methods. Our systematic collection of evaluation methods provides researchers and practitioners with concrete tools to thoroughly validate, benchmark and compare new and existing XAI methods. The Co-12 categorization scheme and our identified evaluation methods open up opportunities to include quantitative metrics as optimization criteria during model training in order to optimize for accuracy and interpretability simultaneously.