Research Papers

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to bridge the gap between complex algorithmic systems and human stakeholders. Current discourse often examines XAI in isolation as either a technological tool, user interface, or policy mechanism. This paper proposes a unifying ethical framework grounded in moral duties and the concept of reciprocity. We argue that XAI should be appreciated not merely as a right, but as part of our moral duties that helps sustain a reciprocal relationship between humans affected by AI systems. This is because, we argue, explanations help sustain constitutive symmetry and agency in AI-led decision-making processes. We then assess leading XAI communities and reveal gaps between the ideal of reciprocity and practical feasibility. Machine learning offers useful techniques but overlooks evaluation and adoption challenges. Human-computer interaction provides preliminary insights but oversimplifies organizational contexts. Policies espouse accountability but lack technical nuance. Synthesizing these views exposes barriers to implementable, ethical XAI. Still, positioning XAI as a moral duty transcends rights-based discourse to capture a more robust and complete moral picture. This paper provides an accessible, detailed analysis elucidating the moral value of explainability.

While a substantial amount of work has recently been devoted to enhance the performance of computational Authorship Identification (AId) systems, little to no attention has been paid to endowing AId systems with the ability to explain the reasons behind their predictions. This lacking substantially hinders the practical employment of AId methodologies, since the predictions returned by such systems are hardly useful unless they are supported with suitable explanations. In this paper, we explore the applicability of existing general-purpose eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to AId, with a special focus on explanations addressed to scholars working in cultural heritage. In particular, we assess the relative merits of three different types of XAI techniques (feature ranking, probing, factuals and counterfactual selection) on three different AId tasks (authorship attribution, authorship verification, same-authorship verification) by running experiments on real AId data. Our analysis shows that, while these techniques make important first steps towards explainable Authorship Identification, more work remains to be done in order to provide tools that can be profitably integrated in the workflows of scholars.

eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged as an essential requirement when dealing with mission-critical applications, ensuring transparency and interpretability of the employed black box AI models. The significance of XAI spans various domains, from healthcare to finance, where understanding the decision-making process of deep learning algorithms is essential. Most AI-based computer vision models are often black boxes; hence, providing explainability of deep neural networks in image processing is crucial for their wide adoption and deployment in medical image analysis, autonomous driving, and remote sensing applications. Recently, several XAI methods for image classification tasks have been introduced. On the contrary, image segmentation has received comparatively less attention in the context of explainability, although it is a fundamental task in computer vision applications, especially in remote sensing. Only some research proposes gradient-based XAI algorithms for image segmentation. This paper adapts the recent gradient-free Sobol XAI method for semantic segmentation. To measure the performance of the Sobol method for segmentation, we propose a quantitative XAI evaluation method based on a learnable noise model. The main objective of this model is to induce noise on the explanation maps, where higher induced noise signifies low accuracy and vice versa. A benchmark analysis is conducted to evaluate and compare performance of three XAI methods, including Seg-Grad-CAM, Seg-Grad-CAM++ and Seg-Sobol using the proposed noise-based evaluation technique. This constitutes the first attempt to run and evaluate XAI methods using high-resolution satellite images.

Towards Feasible Counterfactual Explanations: A Taxonomy Guided Template-based NLG Method

Pedram Salimi, Nirmalie Wiratunga, David Corsar +1

Counterfactual Explanations (cf-XAI) describe the smallest changes in feature values necessary to change an outcome from one class to another. However, many cf-XAI methods neglect the feasibility of those changes. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for presenting cf-XAI in natural language (Natural-XAI), giving careful consideration to actionable and comprehensible aspects while remaining cognizant of immutability and ethical concerns. We present three contributions to this endeavor. Firstly, through a user study, we identify two types of themes present in cf-XAI composed by humans: content-related, focusing on how features and their values are included from both the counterfactual and the query perspectives; and structure-related, focusing on the structure and terminology used for describing necessary value changes. Secondly, we introduce a feature actionability taxonomy with four clearly defined categories, to streamline the explanation presentation process. Using insights from the user study and our taxonomy, we created a generalisable template-based natural language generation (NLG) method compatible with existing explainers like DICE, NICE, and DisCERN, to produce counterfactuals that address the aforementioned limitations of existing approaches. Finally, we conducted a second user study to assess the performance of our taxonomy-guided NLG templates on three domains. Our findings show that the taxonomy-guided Natural-XAI approach (n-XAI^T) received higher user ratings across all dimensions, with significantly improved results in the majority of the domains assessed for articulation, acceptability, feasibility, and sensitivity dimensions.

The Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services of the European Parliament has prepared a report to the Members of the European Parliament where they enumerate seven main risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medicine and healthcare: patient harm due to AI errors, misuse of medical AI tools, bias in AI and the perpetuation of existing inequities, lack of transparency, privacy and security issues, gaps in accountability, and obstacles in implementation. In this study, we propose fourteen functional requirements that AI systems may implement to reduce the risks associated with their medical purpose: AI passport, User management, Regulation check, Academic use only disclaimer, data quality assessment, Clinicians double check, Continuous performance evaluation, Audit trail, Continuous usability test, Review of retrospective/simulated cases, Bias check, eXplainable AI, Encryption and use of field-tested libraries, and Semantic interoperability. Our intention here is to provide specific high-level specifications of technical solutions to ensure continuous good performance and use of AI systems to benefit patients in compliance with the future EU regulatory framework.

The generation of natural language text from data series gained renewed interest among AI research goals. Not surprisingly, the few proposals in the state of the art are based on training some system, in order to produce a text that describes and that is coherent to the data provided as input. Main challenges of such approaches are the proper identification of "what" to say (the key descriptive elements to be addressed in the data) and "how" to say: the correspondence and accuracy between data and text, the presence of contradictions/redundancy in the text, the control of the amount of synthesis. This paper presents a framework that is compliant with xAI requirements. In particular we model ASP/Python programs that enable an explicit control of accuracy errors and amount of synthesis, with proven optimal solutions. The text description is hierarchically organized, in a top-down structure where text is enriched with further details, according to logic rules. The generation of natural language descriptions' structure is also managed by logic rules.

TRIVEA: Transparent Ranking Interpretation using Visual Explanation of Black-Box Algorithmic Rankers

Jun Yuan, Kaustav Bhattacharjee, Akm Zahirul Islam +1

Ranking schemes drive many real-world decisions, like, where to study, whom to hire, what to buy, etc. Many of these decisions often come with high consequences. For example, a university can be deemed less prestigious if not featured in a top-k list, and consumers might not even explore products that do not get recommended to buyers. At the heart of most of these decisions are opaque ranking schemes, which dictate the ordering of data entities, but their internal logic is inaccessible or proprietary. Drawing inferences about the ranking differences is like a guessing game to the stakeholders, like, the rankees (i.e., the entities who are ranked, like product companies) and the decision-makers (i.e., who use the rankings, like buyers). In this paper, we aim to enable transparency in ranking interpretation by using algorithmic rankers that learn from available data and by enabling human reasoning about the learned ranking differences using explainable AI (XAI) methods. To realize this aim, we leverage the exploration-explanation paradigm of human-data interaction to let human stakeholders explore subsets and groupings of complex multi-attribute ranking data using visual explanations of model fit and attribute influence on rankings. We realize this explanation paradigm for transparent ranking interpretation in TRIVEA, a visual analytic system that is fueled by: i) visualizations of model fit derived from algorithmic rankers that learn the associations between attributes and rankings from available data and ii) visual explanations derived from XAI methods that help abstract important patterns, like, the relative influence of attributes in different ranking ranges. Using TRIVEA, end users not trained in data science have the agency to transparently reason about the global and local behavior of the rankings without the need to open black-box ranking models and develop confidence in the resulting attribute-based inferences. We demonstrate the efficacy of TRIVEA using multiple usage scenarios and subjective feedback from researchers with diverse domain expertise. Keywords: Visual Analytics, Learning-to-Rank, Explainable ML, Ranking

The Rashōmon effect poses challenges for deriving reliable knowledge from machine learning models. This study examined the influence of sample size on explanations from models in a Rashōmon set using SHAP. Experiments on 5 public datasets showed that explanations gradually converged as the sample size increased. Explanations from <128 samples exhibited high variability, limiting reliable knowledge extraction. However, agreement between models improved with more data, allowing for consensus. Bagging ensembles often had higher agreement. The results provide guidance on sufficient data to trust explanations. Variability at low samples suggests that conclusions may be unreliable without validation. Further work is needed with more model types, data domains, and explanation methods. Testing convergence in neural networks and with model-specific explanation methods would be impactful. The approaches explored here point towards principled techniques for eliciting knowledge from ambiguous models.

The absence of transparency and explainability hinders the clinical adoption of Machine learning (ML) algorithms. Although various methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) have been suggested, there is a lack of literature that delves into their practicality and assesses them based on criteria that could foster trust in clinical environments. To address this gap this study evaluates two popular XAI methods used for explaining predictive models in the healthcare context in terms of whether they (i) generate domain-appropriate representation, i.e. coherent with respect to the application task, (ii) impact clinical workflow and (iii) are consistent. To that end, explanations generated at the cohort and patient levels were analysed. The paper reports the first benchmarking of the XAI methods applied to risk prediction models obtained by evaluating the concordance between generated explanations and the trigger of a future clinical deterioration episode recorded by the data collection system. We carried out an analysis using two Electronic Medical Records (EMR) datasets sourced from Australian major hospitals. The findings underscore the limitations of state-of-the-art XAI methods in the clinical context and their potential benefits. We discuss these limitations and contribute to the theoretical development of trustworthy XAI solutions where clinical decision support guides the choice of intervention by suggesting the pattern or drivers for clinical deterioration in the future.

Language development experts need tools that can automatically identify languages from fluent, conversational speech, and provide reliable estimates of usage rates at the level of an individual recording. However, language identification systems are typically evaluated on metrics such as equal error rate and balanced accuracy, applied at the level of an entire speech corpus. These overview metrics do not provide information about model performance at the level of individual speakers, recordings, or units of speech with different linguistic characteristics. Overview statistics may therefore mask systematic errors in model performance for some subsets of the data, and consequently, have worse performance on data derived from some subsets of human speakers, creating a kind of algorithmic bias. In the current paper, we investigate how well a number of language identification systems perform on individual recordings and speech units with different linguistic properties in the MERLIon CCS Challenge. The Challenge dataset features accented English-Mandarin code-switched child-directed speech.

Human-AI decision making is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and explanations have been proposed to facilitate better Human-AI interactions. Recent research has investigated the positive impact of explanations on decision subjects' fairness perceptions in algorithmic decision-making. Despite these advances, most studies have captured the effect of explanations in isolation, considering explanations as ends in themselves, and reducing them to technical solutions provided through XAI methodologies. In this vision paper, we argue that the effect of explanations on fairness perceptions should rather be captured in relation to decision subjects' right to contest such decisions. Since contestable AI systems are open to human intervention throughout their lifecycle, contestability requires explanations that go beyond outcomes and also capture the rationales that led to the development and deployment of the algorithmic system in the first place. We refer to such explanations as process-centric explanations. In this work, we introduce the notion of process-centric explanations and describe some of the main challenges and research opportunities for generating and evaluating such explanations.

In this 4-page manuscript we discuss the problem of long-term AI Safety from a Software Engineering (SE) research viewpoint. We briefly summarize long-term AI Safety, and the challenge of avoiding harms from AI as systems meet or exceed human capabilities, including software engineering capabilities (and approach AGI / "HLMI"). We perform a quantified literature review suggesting that AI Safety discussions are not common at SE venues. We make conjectures about how software might change with rising capabilities, and categorize "subproblems" which fit into traditional SE areas, proposing how work on similar problems might improve the future of AI and SE.