Research Papers

Nowadays, we delegate many of our decisions to Artificial Intelligence (AI) that acts either in solo or as a human companion in decisions made to support several sensitive domains, like healthcare, financial services and law enforcement. AI systems, even carefully designed to be fair, are heavily criticized for delivering misjudged and discriminated outcomes against individuals and groups. Numerous work on AI algorithmic fairness is devoted on Machine Learning pipelines which address biases and quantify fairness under a pure computational view. However, the continuous unfair and unjust AI outcomes, indicate that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. Although, the synergy of humans and machines seems imperative to make AI work, the significant impact of human and societal factors on AI bias is currently overlooked. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. Inspired by the cognitive science definition and taxonomy of human heuristics, we identify how harmful human actions influence the overall AI lifecycle, and reveal human to AI biases hidden pathways. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the human heuristics to AI biases reflections and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies. We envision that this approach will contribute in revisiting AI fairness under deeper human-centric case studies, revealing hidden biases cause and effects.

Different prediction models might perform equally well (Rashomon set) in the same task, but offer conflicting interpretations and conclusions about the data. The Rashomon effect in the context of Explainable AI (XAI) has been recognized as a critical factor. Although the Rashomon set has been introduced and studied in various contexts, its practical application is at its infancy stage and lacks adequate guidance and evaluation. We study the problem of the Rashomon set sampling from a practical viewpoint and identify two fundamental axioms - generalizability and implementation sparsity that exploring methods ought to satisfy in practical usage. These two axioms are not satisfied by most known attribution methods, which we consider to be a fundamental weakness. We use the norms to guide the design of an $ε$-subgradient-based sampling method. We apply this method to a fundamental mathematical problem as a proof of concept and to a set of practical datasets to demonstrate its ability compared with existing sampling methods.

Recent legislative regulations have underlined the need for accountable and transparent artificial intelligence systems and have contributed to a growing interest in the Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) field. Nonetheless, the lack of standardized criteria to validate explanation methodologies remains a major obstacle to developing trustworthy systems. We address a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of XAI, the robustness of explanations, which plays a central role in ensuring trust in both the system and the provided explanation. To this end, we propose a novel approach to analyse the robustness of neural network explanations to non-adversarial perturbations, leveraging the manifold hypothesis to produce new perturbed datapoints that resemble the observed data distribution. We additionally present an ensemble method to aggregate various explanations, showing how merging explanations can be beneficial for both understanding the model's decision and evaluating the robustness. The aim of our work is to provide practitioners with a framework for evaluating the trustworthiness of model explanations. Experimental results on feature importances derived from neural networks applied to tabular datasets highlight the importance of robust explanations in practical applications.

The last decade of computer vision has been dominated by Deep Learning architectures, thanks to their unparalleled success. Their performance, however, often comes at the cost of explainability owing to their highly non-linear nature. Consequently, a parallel field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has developed with the aim of generating insights regarding the decision making process of deep learning models. An important problem in XAI is that of the generation of saliency maps. These are regions in an input image which contributed most towards the model's final decision. Most work in this regard, however, has been focused on image classification, and image segmentation - despite being a ubiquitous task - has not received the same attention. In the present work, we propose MiSuRe (Minimally Sufficient Region) as an algorithm to generate saliency maps for image segmentation. The goal of the saliency maps generated by MiSuRe is to get rid of irrelevant regions, and only highlight those regions in the input image which are crucial to the image segmentation decision. We perform our analysis on 3 datasets: Triangle (artificially constructed), COCO-2017 (natural images), and the Synapse multi-organ (medical images). Additionally, we identify a potential usecase of these post-hoc saliency maps in order to perform post-hoc reliability of the segmentation model.

Model Interpretation and Explainability: Towards Creating Transparency in Prediction Models

Donald Kridel, Jacob Dineen, Daniel Dolk +1

Explainable AI (XAI) has a counterpart in analytical modeling which we refer to as model explainability. We tackle the issue of model explainability in the context of prediction models. We analyze a dataset of loans from a credit card company and apply three stages: execute and compare four different prediction methods, apply the best known explainability techniques in the current literature to the model training sets to identify feature importance (FI) (static case), and finally to cross-check whether the FI set holds up under what if prediction scenarios for continuous and categorical variables (dynamic case). We found inconsistency in FI identification between the static and dynamic cases. We summarize the state of the art in model explainability and suggest further research to advance the field.

Despite the excelling performance of machine learning models, understanding their decisions remains a long-standing goal. Although commonly used attribution methods from explainable AI attempt to address this issue, they typically rely on associational rather than causal relationships. In this study, within the context of time series classification, we introduce a novel model-agnostic attribution method to assess the causal effect of concepts i.e., predefined segments within a time series, on classification outcomes. Our approach compares these causal attributions with closely related associational attributions, both theoretically and empirically. To estimate counterfactual outcomes, we use state-of-the-art diffusion models backed by state space models. We demonstrate the insights gained by our approach for a diverse set of qualitatively different time series classification tasks. Although causal and associational attributions might often share some similarities, in all cases they differ in important details, underscoring the risks associated with drawing causal conclusions from associational data alone. We believe that the proposed approach is also widely applicable in other domains to shed some light on the limits of associational attributions.

In this paper, we explore the feasibility of using a transformer-based, spatiotemporal attention network (STAN) for gradient-based time-series explanations. First, we trained the STAN model for video classifications using the global and local views of data and weakly supervised labels on time-series data (i.e. the type of an activity). We then leveraged a gradient-based XAI technique (e.g. saliency map) to identify salient frames of time-series data. According to the experiments using the datasets of four medically relevant activities, the STAN model demonstrated its potential to identify important frames of videos.

Mounting evidence in explainability for artificial intelligence (XAI) research suggests that good explanations should be tailored to individual tasks and should relate to concepts relevant to the task. However, building task specific explanations is time consuming and requires domain expertise which can be difficult to integrate into generic XAI methods. A promising approach towards designing useful task specific explanations with domain experts is based on compositionality of semantic concepts. Here, we present a novel approach that enables domain experts to quickly create concept-based explanations for computer vision tasks intuitively via natural language. Leveraging recent progress in deep generative methods we propose to generate visual concept-based prototypes via text-to-image methods. These prototypes are then used to explain predictions of computer vision models via a simple k-Nearest-Neighbors routine. The modular design of CoProNN is simple to implement, it is straightforward to adapt to novel tasks and allows for replacing the classification and text-to-image models as more powerful models are released. The approach can be evaluated offline against the ground-truth of predefined prototypes that can be easily communicated also to domain experts as they are based on visual concepts. We show that our strategy competes very well with other concept-based XAI approaches on coarse grained image classification tasks and may even outperform those methods on more demanding fine grained tasks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method for human-machine collaboration settings in qualitative and quantitative user studies. All code and experimental data can be found in our GitHub $\href{https://github.com/TeodorChiaburu/beexplainable}{repository}$.

Given the sheer volume of surgical procedures and the significant rate of postoperative fatalities, assessing and managing surgical complications has become a critical public health concern. Existing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for risk surveillance and diagnosis often lack adequate interpretability, fairness, and reproducibility. To address this, we proposed an Explainable AI (XAI) framework designed to answer five critical questions: why, why not, how, what if, and what else, with the goal of enhancing the explainability and transparency of AI models. We incorporated various techniques such as Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME), SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), counterfactual explanations, model cards, an interactive feature manipulation interface, and the identification of similar patients to address these questions. We showcased an XAI interface prototype that adheres to this framework for predicting major postoperative complications. This initial implementation has provided valuable insights into the vast explanatory potential of our XAI framework and represents an initial step towards its clinical adoption.

Some have criticised Generative AI Systems for replicating the familiar pathologies of already widely-deployed AI systems. Other critics highlight how they foreshadow vastly more powerful future systems, which might threaten humanity's survival. The first group says there is nothing new here; the other looks through the present to a perhaps distant horizon. In this paper, I instead pay attention to what makes these particular systems distinctive: both their remarkable scientific achievement, and the most likely and consequential ways in which they will change society over the next five to ten years. In particular, I explore the potential societal impacts and normative questions raised by the looming prospect of 'Language Model Agents', in which multimodal large language models (LLMs) form the executive centre of complex, tool-using AI systems that can take unsupervised sequences of actions towards some goal.

This article critically examines the recent hype around AI safety. We first start with noting the nature of the AI safety hype as being dominated by governments and corporations, and contrast it with other avenues within AI research on advancing social good. We consider what 'AI safety' actually means, and outline the dominant concepts that the digital footprint of AI safety aligns with. We posit that AI safety has a nuanced and uneasy relationship with transparency and other allied notions associated with societal good, indicating that it is an insufficient notion if the goal is that of societal good in a broad sense. We note that the AI safety debate has already influenced some regulatory efforts in AI, perhaps in not so desirable directions. We also share our concerns on how AI safety may normalize AI that advances structural harm through providing exploitative and harmful AI with a veneer of safety.

There is growing interest in AI systems that support human decision-making in high-stakes domains (e.g., medical diagnosis) to improve decision quality and reduce cognitive load. Mainstream approaches pair human experts with a machine-learning model, offloading low-risk decisions to the model so that experts can focus on cases that require their judgment. This separation of responsibilities setup, however, is inadequate for high-stakes scenarios. The expert may end up over-relying on the machine's decisions due to anchoring bias, thus losing the human oversight that is increasingly being required by regulatory agencies to ensure trustworthy AI. On the other hand, the expert is left entirely unassisted on the (typically hardest) decisions on which the model abstained. As a remedy, we introduce learning to guide (LTG), an alternative framework in which -- rather than taking control from the human expert -- the machine provides guidance useful for decision making, and the human is entirely responsible for coming up with a decision. In order to ensure guidance is interpretable and task-specific, we develop SLOG, an approach for turning any vision-language model into a capable generator of textual guidance by leveraging a modicum of human feedback. Our empirical evaluation highlights the promise of SLOG on both on a synthetic dataset and a challenging, real-world medical diagnosis task.