Research Papers

Despite AI's significant growth, its "black box" nature creates challenges in generating adequate trust. Thus, it is seldom utilized as a standalone unit in IoT high-risk applications, such as critical industrial infrastructures, medical systems, and financial applications, etc. Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged to help with this problem. However, designing appropriately fast and accurate XAI is still challenging, especially in numerical applications. Here, we propose a universal XAI model named Transparency Relying Upon Statistical Theory (TRUST), which is model-agnostic, high-performing, and suitable for numerical applications. Simply put, TRUST XAI models the statistical behavior of the AI's outputs in an AI-based system. Factor analysis is used to transform the input features into a new set of latent variables. We use mutual information to rank these variables and pick only the most influential ones on the AI's outputs and call them "representatives" of the classes. Then we use multi-modal Gaussian distributions to determine the likelihood of any new sample belonging to each class. We demonstrate the effectiveness of TRUST in a case study on cybersecurity of the industrial Internet of things (IIoT) using three different cybersecurity datasets. As IIoT is a prominent application that deals with numerical data. The results show that TRUST XAI provides explanations for new random samples with an average success rate of 98%. Compared with LIME, a popular XAI model, TRUST is shown to be superior in the context of performance, speed, and the method of explainability. In the end, we also show how TRUST is explained to the user.

The Emerging Landscape of Explainable AI Planning and Decision Making

Tathagata Chakraborti, Sarath Sreedharan, Subbarao Kambhampati

In this paper, we provide a comprehensive outline of the different threads of work in Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) that has emerged as a focus area in the last couple of years and contrast that with earlier efforts in the field in terms of techniques, target users, and delivery mechanisms. We hope that the survey will provide guidance to new researchers in automated planning towards the role of explanations in the effective design of human-in-the-loop systems, as well as provide the established researcher with some perspective on the evolution of the exciting world of explainable planning.

Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) in decision support systems has disproportionately focused on technological advancements, often overlooking the alignment between algorithmic outputs and human expectations. A human-centered perspective attempts to alleviate this concern by designing AI solutions for seamless integration with existing processes. Determining what information AI should provide to aid humans is vital, a concept underscored by explainable AI's efforts to justify AI predictions. However, how the information is presented, e.g., the sequence of recommendations and solicitation of interpretations, is equally crucial as complex interactions may emerge between humans and AI. While empirical studies have evaluated human-AI dynamics across domains, a common vocabulary for human-AI interaction protocols is lacking. To promote more deliberate consideration of interaction designs, we introduce a taxonomy of interaction patterns that delineate various modes of human-AI interactivity. We summarize the results of a systematic review of AI-assisted decision making literature and identify trends and opportunities in existing interactions across application domains from 105 articles. We find that current interactions are dominated by simplistic collaboration paradigms, leading to little support for truly interactive functionality. Our taxonomy offers a tool to understand interactivity with AI in decision-making and foster interaction designs for achieving clear communication, trustworthiness, and collaboration.

The black-box nature of artificial intelligence (AI) models has been the source of many concerns in their use for critical applications. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a rapidly growing research field that aims to create machine learning models that can provide clear and interpretable explanations for their decisions and actions. In the field of network cybersecurity, XAI has the potential to revolutionize the way we approach network security by enabling us to better understand the behavior of cyber threats and to design more effective defenses. In this survey, we review the state of the art in XAI for cybersecurity in network systems and explore the various approaches that have been proposed to address this important problem. The review follows a systematic classification of network-driven cybersecurity threats and issues. We discuss the challenges and limitations of current XAI methods in the context of cybersecurity and outline promising directions for future research.

On Generating Plausible Counterfactual and Semi-Factual Explanations for Deep Learning

Eoin M. Kenny, Mark T. Keane

There is a growing concern that the recent progress made in AI, especially regarding the predictive competence of deep learning models, will be undermined by a failure to properly explain their operation and outputs. In response to this disquiet counterfactual explanations have become massively popular in eXplainable AI (XAI) due to their proposed computational psychological, and legal benefits. In contrast however, semifactuals, which are a similar way humans commonly explain their reasoning, have surprisingly received no attention. Most counterfactual methods address tabular rather than image data, partly due to the nondiscrete nature of the latter making good counterfactuals difficult to define. Additionally generating plausible looking explanations which lie on the data manifold is another issue which hampers progress. This paper advances a novel method for generating plausible counterfactuals (and semifactuals) for black box CNN classifiers doing computer vision. The present method, called PlausIble Exceptionality-based Contrastive Explanations (PIECE), modifies all exceptional features in a test image to be normal from the perspective of the counterfactual class (hence concretely defining a counterfactual). Two controlled experiments compare this method to others in the literature, showing that PIECE not only generates the most plausible counterfactuals on several measures, but also the best semifactuals.

Explaining Black-Box Algorithms Using Probabilistic Contrastive Counterfactuals

Sainyam Galhotra, Romila Pradhan, Babak Salimi

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) that aims to reduce the opaqueness of AI-based decision-making systems, allowing humans to scrutinize and trust them. Prior work in this context has focused on the attribution of responsibility for an algorithm's decisions to its inputs wherein responsibility is typically approached as a purely associational concept. In this paper, we propose a principled causality-based approach for explaining black-box decision-making systems that addresses limitations of existing methods in XAI. At the core of our framework lies probabilistic contrastive counterfactuals, a concept that can be traced back to philosophical, cognitive, and social foundations of theories on how humans generate and select explanations. We show how such counterfactuals can quantify the direct and indirect influences of a variable on decisions made by an algorithm, and provide actionable recourse for individuals negatively affected by the algorithm's decision. Unlike prior work, our system, LEWIS: (1)can compute provably effective explanations and recourse at local, global and contextual levels (2)is designed to work with users with varying levels of background knowledge of the underlying causal model and (3)makes no assumptions about the internals of an algorithmic system except for the availability of its input-output data. We empirically evaluate LEWIS on three real-world datasets and show that it generates human-understandable explanations that improve upon state-of-the-art approaches in XAI, including the popular LIME and SHAP. Experiments on synthetic data further demonstrate the correctness of LEWIS's explanations and the scalability of its recourse algorithm.

In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Making

Raymond Fok, Daniel S. Weld

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Defect prediction models are proposed to help a team prioritize source code areas files that need Software QualityAssurance (SQA) based on the likelihood of having defects. However, developers may waste their unnecessary effort on the whole filewhile only a small fraction of its source code lines are defective. Indeed, we find that as little as 1%-3% of lines of a file are defective. Hence, in this work, we propose a novel framework (called LINE-DP) to identify defective lines using a model-agnostic technique, i.e., an Explainable AI technique that provides information why the model makes such a prediction. Broadly speaking, our LINE-DP first builds a file-level defect model using code token features. Then, our LINE-DP uses a state-of-the-art model-agnostic technique (i.e.,LIME) to identify risky tokens, i.e., code tokens that lead the file-level defect model to predict that the file will be defective. Then, the lines that contain risky tokens are predicted as defective lines. Through a case study of 32 releases of nine Java open source systems, our evaluation results show that our LINE-DP achieves an average recall of 0.61, a false alarm rate of 0.47, a top 20%LOC recall of0.27, and an initial false alarm of 16, which are statistically better than six baseline approaches. Our evaluation shows that our LINE-DP requires an average computation time of 10 seconds including model construction and defective line identification time. In addition, we find that 63% of defective lines that can be identified by our LINE-DP are related to common defects (e.g., argument change, condition change). These results suggest that our LINE-DP can effectively identify defective lines that contain common defectswhile requiring a smaller amount of inspection effort and a manageable computation cost.

Black-box nature of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models do not allow users to comprehend and sometimes trust the output created by such model. In AI applications, where not only the results but also the decision paths to the results are critical, such black-box AI models are not sufficient. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) addresses this problem and defines a set of AI models that are interpretable by the users. Recently, several number of XAI models have been to address the issues surrounding by lack of interpretability and explainability of black-box models in various application areas such as healthcare, military, energy, financial and industrial domains. Although the concept of XAI has gained great deal of attention recently, its integration into the IoT domain has not yet been fully defined. In this paper, we provide an in-depth and systematic review of recent studies using XAI models in the scope of IoT domain. We categorize the studies according to their methodology and applications areas. In addition, we aim to focus on the challenging problems and open issues and give future directions to guide the developers and researchers for prospective future investigations.

The successful deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in many domains from healthcare to hiring requires their responsible use, particularly in model explanations and privacy. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) provides more information to help users to understand model decisions, yet this additional knowledge exposes additional risks for privacy attacks. Hence, providing explanation harms privacy. We study this risk for image-based model inversion attacks and identified several attack architectures with increasing performance to reconstruct private image data from model explanations. We have developed several multi-modal transposed CNN architectures that achieve significantly higher inversion performance than using the target model prediction only. These XAI-aware inversion models were designed to exploit the spatial knowledge in image explanations. To understand which explanations have higher privacy risk, we analyzed how various explanation types and factors influence inversion performance. In spite of some models not providing explanations, we further demonstrate increased inversion performance even for non-explainable target models by exploiting explanations of surrogate models through attention transfer. This method first inverts an explanation from the target prediction, then reconstructs the target image. These threats highlight the urgent and significant privacy risks of explanations and calls attention for new privacy preservation techniques that balance the dual-requirement for AI explainability and privacy.

Predictive maintenance is a well studied collection of techniques that aims to prolong the life of a mechanical system by using artificial intelligence and machine learning to predict the optimal time to perform maintenance. The methods allow maintainers of systems and hardware to reduce financial and time costs of upkeep. As these methods are adopted for more serious and potentially life-threatening applications, the human operators need trust the predictive system. This attracts the field of Explainable AI (XAI) to introduce explainability and interpretability into the predictive system. XAI brings methods to the field of predictive maintenance that can amplify trust in the users while maintaining well-performing systems. This survey on explainable predictive maintenance (XPM) discusses and presents the current methods of XAI as applied to predictive maintenance while following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We categorize the different XPM methods into groups that follow the XAI literature. Additionally, we include current challenges and a discussion on future research directions in XPM.

Black-box Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods, e.g. deep neural networks, have been widely utilized to build predictive models that can extract complex relationships in a dataset and make predictions for new unseen data records. However, it is difficult to trust decisions made by such methods since their inner working and decision logic is hidden from the user. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) refers to systems that try to explain how a black-box AI model produces its outcomes. Post-hoc XAI methods approximate the behavior of a black-box by extracting relationships between feature values and the predictions. Perturbation-based and decision set methods are among commonly used post-hoc XAI systems. The former explanators rely on random perturbations of data records to build local or global linear models that explain individual predictions or the whole model. The latter explanators use those feature values that appear more frequently to construct a set of decision rules that produces the same outcomes as the target black-box. However, these two classes of XAI methods have some limitations. Random perturbations do not take into account the distribution of feature values in different subspaces, leading to misleading approximations. Decision sets only pay attention to frequent feature values and miss many important correlations between features and class labels that appear less frequently but accurately represent decision boundaries of the model. In this paper, we address the above challenges by proposing an explanation method named Confident Itemsets Explanation (CIE). We introduce confident itemsets, a set of feature values that are highly correlated to a specific class label. CIE utilizes confident itemsets to discretize the whole decision space of a model to smaller subspaces.