Research Papers

In light of the NIMH's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), the advent of functional neuroimaging, novel technologies and methods provide new opportunities to develop precise and personalized prognosis and diagnosis of mental disorders. Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are playing an increasingly critical role in the new era of precision psychiatry. Combining ML/AI with neuromodulation technologies can potentially provide explainable solutions in clinical practice and effective therapeutic treatment. Advanced wearable and mobile technologies also call for the new role of ML/AI for digital phenotyping in mobile mental health. In this review, we provide a comprehensive review of the ML methodologies and applications by combining neuroimaging, neuromodulation, and advanced mobile technologies in psychiatry practice. Additionally, we review the role of ML in molecular phenotyping and cross-species biomarker identification in precision psychiatry. We further discuss explainable AI (XAI) and causality testing in a closed-human-in-the-loop manner, and highlight the ML potential in multimedia information extraction and multimodal data fusion. Finally, we discuss conceptual and practical challenges in precision psychiatry and highlight ML opportunities in future research.

Benchmark datasets play a central role in the organization of machine learning research. They coordinate researchers around shared research problems and serve as a measure of progress towards shared goals. Despite the foundational role of benchmarking practices in this field, relatively little attention has been paid to the dynamics of benchmark dataset use and reuse, within or across machine learning subcommunities. In this paper, we dig into these dynamics. We study how dataset usage patterns differ across machine learning subcommunities and across time from 2015-2020. We find increasing concentration on fewer and fewer datasets within task communities, significant adoption of datasets from other tasks, and concentration across the field on datasets that have been introduced by researchers situated within a small number of elite institutions. Our results have implications for scientific evaluation, AI ethics, and equity/access within the field.

If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniques

Mark T Keane, Eoin M Kenny, Eoin Delaney +1

In recent years, there has been an explosion of AI research on counterfactual explanations as a solution to the problem of eXplainable AI (XAI). These explanations seem to offer technical, psychological and legal benefits over other explanation techniques. We survey 100 distinct counterfactual explanation methods reported in the literature. This survey addresses the extent to which these methods have been adequately evaluated, both psychologically and computationally, and quantifies the shortfalls occurring. For instance, only 21% of these methods have been user tested. Five key deficits in the evaluation of these methods are detailed and a roadmap, with standardised benchmark evaluations, is proposed to resolve the issues arising; issues, that currently effectively block scientific progress in this field.

This paper explores the significant impact of AI-based medical devices, including wearables, telemedicine, large language models, and digital twins, on clinical decision support systems. It emphasizes the importance of producing outcomes that are not only accurate but also interpretable and understandable to clinicians, addressing the risk that lack of interpretability poses in terms of mistrust and reluctance to adopt these technologies in healthcare. The paper reviews interpretable AI processes, methods, applications, and the challenges of implementation in healthcare, focusing on quality control to facilitate responsible communication between AI systems and clinicians. It breaks down the interpretability process into data pre-processing, model selection, and post-processing, aiming to foster a comprehensive understanding of the crucial role of a robust interpretability approach in healthcare and to guide future research in this area. with insights for creating responsible clinician-AI tools for healthcare, as well as to offer a deeper understanding of the challenges they might face. Our research questions, eligibility criteria and primary goals were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline and PICO method; PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using sensitive and specific search strings. In the end, 52 publications were selected for data extraction which included 8 existing reviews and 44 related experimental studies. The paper offers general concepts of interpretable AI in healthcare and discuss three-levels interpretability process. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive discussion of evaluating robust interpretability AI in healthcare. Moreover, this survey introduces a step-by-step roadmap for implementing responsible AI in healthcare.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) on TimeSeries Data: A Survey

Thomas Rojat, Raphaël Puget, David Filliat +3

Most of state of the art methods applied on time series consist of deep learning methods that are too complex to be interpreted. This lack of interpretability is a major drawback, as several applications in the real world are critical tasks, such as the medical field or the autonomous driving field. The explainability of models applied on time series has not gather much attention compared to the computer vision or the natural language processing fields. In this paper, we present an overview of existing explainable AI (XAI) methods applied on time series and illustrate the type of explanations they produce. We also provide a reflection on the impact of these explanation methods to provide confidence and trust in the AI systems.

Argumentative XAI: A Survey

Kristijonas Čyras, Antonio Rago, Emanuele Albini +2

Explainable AI (XAI) has been investigated for decades and, together with AI itself, has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years. Among various approaches to XAI, argumentative models have been advocated in both the AI and social science literature, as their dialectical nature appears to match some basic desirable features of the explanation activity. In this survey we overview XAI approaches built using methods from the field of computational argumentation, leveraging its wide array of reasoning abstractions and explanation delivery methods. We overview the literature focusing on different types of explanation (intrinsic and post-hoc), different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use. We also lay out a roadmap for future work.

RAIN: Your Language Models Can Align Themselves without Finetuning

Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Jinjing Zhao +2

Large language models (LLMs) often demonstrate inconsistencies with human preferences. Previous research typically gathered human preference data and then aligned the pre-trained models using reinforcement learning or instruction tuning, a.k.a. the finetuning step. In contrast, aligning frozen LLMs without requiring alignment data is more appealing. This work explores the potential of the latter setting. We discover that by integrating self-evaluation and rewind mechanisms, unaligned LLMs can directly produce responses consistent with human preferences via self-boosting. We introduce a novel inference method, Rewindable Auto-regressive INference (RAIN), that allows pre-trained LLMs to evaluate their own generation and use the evaluation results to guide rewind and generation for AI safety. Notably, RAIN operates without the need of extra data for model alignment and abstains from any training, gradient computation, or parameter updates. Experimental results evaluated by GPT-4 and humans demonstrate the effectiveness of RAIN: on the HH dataset, RAIN improves the harmlessness rate of LLaMA 30B from 82% of vanilla inference to 97%, while maintaining the helpfulness rate. On the TruthfulQA dataset, RAIN improves the truthfulness of the already-well-aligned LLaMA-2-chat 13B model by 5%.

Stakeholders in Explainable AI

Alun Preece, Dan Harborne, Dave Braines +2

There is general consensus that it is important for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning systems to be explainable and/or interpretable. However, there is no general consensus over what is meant by 'explainable' and 'interpretable'. In this paper, we argue that this lack of consensus is due to there being several distinct stakeholder communities. We note that, while the concerns of the individual communities are broadly compatible, they are not identical, which gives rise to different intents and requirements for explainability/interpretability. We use the software engineering distinction between validation and verification, and the epistemological distinctions between knowns/unknowns, to tease apart the concerns of the stakeholder communities and highlight the areas where their foci overlap or diverge. It is not the purpose of the authors of this paper to 'take sides' - we count ourselves as members, to varying degrees, of multiple communities - but rather to help disambiguate what stakeholders mean when they ask 'Why?' of an AI.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is essential for enabling clinical users to get informed decision support from AI and comply with evidence-based medical practice. Applying XAI in clinical settings requires proper evaluation criteria to ensure the explanation technique is both technically sound and clinically useful, but specific support is lacking to achieve this goal. To bridge the research gap, we propose the Clinical XAI Guidelines that consist of five criteria a clinical XAI needs to be optimized for. The guidelines recommend choosing an explanation form based on Guideline 1 (G1) Understandability and G2 Clinical relevance. For the chosen explanation form, its specific XAI technique should be optimized for G3 Truthfulness, G4 Informative plausibility, and G5 Computational efficiency. Following the guidelines, we conducted a systematic evaluation on a novel problem of multi-modal medical image explanation with two clinical tasks, and proposed new evaluation metrics accordingly. Sixteen commonly-used heatmap XAI techniques were evaluated and found to be insufficient for clinical use due to their failure in G3 and G4. Our evaluation demonstrated the use of Clinical XAI Guidelines to support the design and evaluation of clinically viable XAI.

Good Counterfactuals and Where to Find Them: A Case-Based Technique for Generating Counterfactuals for Explainable AI (XAI)

Mark T. Keane, Barry Smyth

Recently, a groundswell of research has identified the use of counterfactual explanations as a potentially significant solution to the Explainable AI (XAI) problem. It is argued that (a) technically, these counterfactual cases can be generated by permuting problem-features until a class change is found, (b) psychologically, they are much more causally informative than factual explanations, (c) legally, they are GDPR-compliant. However, there are issues around the finding of good counterfactuals using current techniques (e.g. sparsity and plausibility). We show that many commonly-used datasets appear to have few good counterfactuals for explanation purposes. So, we propose a new case based approach for generating counterfactuals using novel ideas about the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of a case-base. The new technique reuses patterns of good counterfactuals, present in a case-base, to generate analogous counterfactuals that can explain new problems and their solutions. Several experiments show how this technique can improve the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of case-bases that were previously found wanting.

Evaluating explainable artificial intelligence methods for multi-label deep learning classification tasks in remote sensing

Ioannis Kakogeorgiou, Konstantinos Karantzalos

Although deep neural networks hold the state-of-the-art in several remote sensing tasks, their black-box operation hinders the understanding of their decisions, concealing any bias and other shortcomings in datasets and model performance. To this end, we have applied explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods in remote sensing multi-label classification tasks towards producing human-interpretable explanations and improve transparency. In particular, we utilized and trained deep learning models with state-of-the-art performance in the benchmark BigEarthNet and SEN12MS datasets. Ten XAI methods were employed towards understanding and interpreting models' predictions, along with quantitative metrics to assess and compare their performance. Numerous experiments were performed to assess the overall performance of XAI methods for straightforward prediction cases, competing multiple labels, as well as misclassification cases. According to our findings, Occlusion, Grad-CAM and Lime were the most interpretable and reliable XAI methods. However, none delivers high-resolution outputs, while apart from Grad-CAM, both Lime and Occlusion are computationally expensive. We also highlight different aspects of XAI performance and elaborate with insights on black-box decisions in order to improve transparency, understand their behavior and reveal, as well, datasets' particularities.

Towards Best Practice in Explaining Neural Network Decisions with LRP

Maximilian Kohlbrenner, Alexander Bauer, Shinichi Nakajima +3

Within the last decade, neural network based predictors have demonstrated impressive - and at times super-human - capabilities. This performance is often paid for with an intransparent prediction process and thus has sparked numerous contributions in the novel field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we focus on a popular and widely used method of XAI, the Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP). Since its initial proposition LRP has evolved as a method, and a best practice for applying the method has tacitly emerged, based however on humanly observed evidence alone. In this paper we investigate - and for the first time quantify - the effect of this current best practice on feedforward neural networks in a visual object detection setting. The results verify that the layer-dependent approach to LRP applied in recent literature better represents the model's reasoning, and at the same time increases the object localization and class discriminativity of LRP.