Research Papers

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is having more influence on our everyday lives, it becomes important that AI-based decisions are transparent and explainable. As a consequence, the field of eXplainable AI (or XAI) has become popular in recent years. One way to explain AI models is to elucidate the predictive importance of the input features for the AI model in general, also referred to as global explanations. Inspired by cooperative game theory, Shapley values offer a convenient way for quantifying the feature importance as explanations. However many methods based on Shapley values are built on the assumption of feature independence and often overlook causal relations of the features which could impact their importance for the ML model. Inspired by studies of explanations at the local level, we propose CAGE (Causally-Aware Shapley Values for Global Explanations). In particular, we introduce a novel sampling procedure for out-coalition features that respects the causal relations of the input features. We derive a practical approach that incorporates causal knowledge into global explanation and offers the possibility to interpret the predictive feature importance considering their causal relation. We evaluate our method on synthetic data and real-world data. The explanations from our approach suggest that they are not only more intuitive but also more faithful compared to previous global explanation methods.

The widespread use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools in the healthcare sector raises many ethical and legal problems, one of the main reasons being their black-box nature and therefore the seemingly opacity and inscrutability of their characteristics and decision-making process. Literature extensively discusses how this can lead to phenomena of over-reliance and under-reliance, ultimately limiting the adoption of AI. We addressed these issues by building a theoretical framework based on three concepts: Feature Importance, Counterexample Explanations, and Similar-Case Explanations. Grounded in the literature, the model was deployed within a case study in which, using a participatory design approach, we designed and developed a high-fidelity prototype. Through the co-design and development of the prototype and the underlying model, we advanced the knowledge on how to design AI-based systems for enabling complementarity in the decision-making process in the healthcare domain. Our work aims at contributing to the current discourse on designing AI systems to support clinicians' decision-making processes.

Explainability in JupyterLab and Beyond: Interactive XAI Systems for Integrated and Collaborative Workflows

Grace Guo, Dustin Arendt, Alex Endert

Explainable AI (XAI) tools represent a turn to more human-centered and human-in-the-loop AI approaches that emphasize user needs and perspectives in machine learning model development workflows. However, while the majority of ML resources available today are developed for Python computational environments such as JupyterLab and Jupyter Notebook, the same has not been true of interactive XAI systems, which are often still implemented as standalone interfaces. In this paper, we address this mismatch by identifying three design patterns for embedding front-end XAI interfaces into Jupyter, namely: 1) One-way communication from Python to JavaScript, 2) Two-way data synchronization, and 3) Bi-directional callbacks. We also provide an open-source toolkit, bonXAI, that demonstrates how each design pattern might be used to build interactive XAI tools for a Pytorch text classification workflow. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of best practices and open questions. Our aims for this paper are to discuss how interactive XAI tools might be developed for computational notebooks, and how they can better integrate into existing model development workflows to support more collaborative, human-centered AI.

The domain of explainable AI is of interest in all Machine Learning fields, and it is all the more important in clustering, an unsupervised task whose result must be validated by a domain expert. We aim at finding a clustering that has high quality in terms of classic clustering criteria and that is explainable, and we argue that these two dimensions must be considered when building the clustering. We consider that a good global explanation of a clustering should give the characteristics of each cluster taking into account their abilities to describe its objects (coverage) while distinguishing it from the other clusters (discrimination). Furthermore, we aim at leveraging expert knowledge, at different levels, on the structure of the expected clustering or on its explanations. In our framework an explanation of a cluster is a set of patterns, and we propose a novel interpretable constrained clustering method called ECS for declarative clustering with Explainabilty-driven Cluster Selection that integrates structural or domain expert knowledge expressed by means of constraints. It is based on the notion of coverage and discrimination that are formalized at different levels (cluster / clustering), each allowing for exceptions through parameterized thresholds. Our method relies on four steps: generation of a set of partitions, computation of frequent patterns for each cluster, pruning clusters that violates some constraints, and selection of clusters and associated patterns to build an interpretable clustering. This last step is combinatorial and we have developed a Constraint-Programming (CP) model to solve it. The method can integrate prior knowledge in the form of user constraints, both before or in the CP model.

This paper examines two prominent formal trade-offs in artificial intelligence (AI) -- between predictive accuracy and fairness, and between predictive accuracy and interpretability. These trade-offs have become a central focus in normative and regulatory discussions as policymakers seek to understand the value tensions that can arise in the social adoption of AI tools. The prevailing interpretation views these formal trade-offs as directly corresponding to tensions between underlying social values, implying unavoidable conflicts between those social objectives. In this paper, I challenge that prevalent interpretation by introducing a sociotechnical approach to examining the value implications of trade-offs. Specifically, I identify three key considerations -- validity and instrumental relevance, compositionality, and dynamics -- for contextualizing and characterizing these implications. These considerations reveal that the relationship between model trade-offs and corresponding values depends on critical choices and assumptions. Crucially, judicious sacrifices in one model property for another can, in fact, promote both sets of corresponding values. The proposed sociotechnical perspective thus shows that we can and should aspire to higher epistemic and ethical possibilities than the prevalent interpretation suggests, while offering practical guidance for achieving those outcomes. Finally, I draw out the broader implications of this perspective for AI design and governance, highlighting the need to broaden normative engagement across the AI lifecycle, develop legal and auditing tools sensitive to sociotechnical considerations, and rethink the vital role and appropriate structure of interdisciplinary collaboration in fostering a responsible AI workforce.

Toward Human-AI Alignment in Large-Scale Multi-Player Games

Sugandha Sharma, Guy Davidson, Khimya Khetarpal +4

Achieving human-AI alignment in complex multi-agent games is crucial for creating trustworthy AI agents that enhance gameplay. We propose a method to evaluate this alignment using an interpretable task-sets framework, focusing on high-level behavioral tasks instead of low-level policies. Our approach has three components. First, we analyze extensive human gameplay data from Xbox's Bleeding Edge (100K+ games), uncovering behavioral patterns in a complex task space. This task space serves as a basis set for a behavior manifold capturing interpretable axes: fight-flight, explore-exploit, and solo-multi-agent. Second, we train an AI agent to play Bleeding Edge using a Generative Pretrained Causal Transformer and measure its behavior. Third, we project human and AI gameplay to the proposed behavior manifold to compare and contrast. This allows us to interpret differences in policy as higher-level behavioral concepts, e.g., we find that while human players exhibit variability in fight-flight and explore-exploit behavior, AI players tend towards uniformity. Furthermore, AI agents predominantly engage in solo play, while humans often engage in cooperative and competitive multi-agent patterns. These stark differences underscore the need for interpretable evaluation, design, and integration of AI in human-aligned applications. Our study advances the alignment discussion in AI and especially generative AI research, offering a measurable framework for interpretable human-agent alignment in multiplayer gaming.

We developed REVEX, a removal-based video explanations framework. This work extends fine-grained explanation frameworks for computer vision data and adapts six existing techniques to video by adding temporal information and local explanations. The adapted methods were evaluated across networks, datasets, image classes, and evaluation metrics. By decomposing explanation into steps, strengths and weaknesses were revealed in the studied methods, for example, on pixel clustering and perturbations in the input. Video LIME outperformed other methods with deletion values up to 31\% lower and insertion up to 30\% higher, depending on method and network. Video RISE achieved superior performance in the average drop metric, with values 10\% lower. In contrast, localization-based metrics revealed low performance across all methods, with significant variation depending on network. Pointing game accuracy reached 53\%, and IoU-based metrics remained below 20\%. Drawing on the findings across XAI methods, we further examine the limitations of the employed XAI evaluation metrics and highlight their suitability in different applications.

In the realm of automatic speech recognition (ASR), the quest for models that not only perform with high accuracy but also offer transparency in their decision-making processes is crucial. The potential of quality estimation (QE) metrics is introduced and evaluated as a novel tool to enhance explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in ASR systems. Through experiments and analyses, the capabilities of the NoRefER (No Reference Error Rate) metric are explored in identifying word-level errors to aid post-editors in refining ASR hypotheses. The investigation also extends to the utility of NoRefER in the corpus-building process, demonstrating its effectiveness in augmenting datasets with insightful annotations. The diagnostic aspects of NoRefER are examined, revealing its ability to provide valuable insights into model behaviors and decision patterns. This has proven beneficial for prioritizing hypotheses in post-editing workflows and fine-tuning ASR models. The findings suggest that NoRefER is not merely a tool for error detection but also a comprehensive framework for enhancing ASR systems' transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness. To ensure the reproducibility of the results, all source codes of this study are made publicly available.

One of the motivations for explainable AI is to allow humans to make better and more informed decisions regarding the use and deployment of AI models. But careful evaluations are needed to assess whether this expectation has been fulfilled. Current evaluations mainly focus on algorithmic properties of explanations, and those that involve human subjects often employ subjective questions to test human's perception of explanation usefulness, without being grounded in objective metrics and measurements. In this work, we evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. We conduct a mixed-methods user study involving image data to evaluate saliency maps generated by SmoothGrad, GradCAM, and an oracle explanation on two tasks: model selection and counterfactual simulation. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on these tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps, even the synthetic oracle explanation designed to be simple to understand and highly indicative of the answer. Nonetheless, explanations did help users more accurately describe the models. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.

Double staining in histopathology, particularly for metaplastic breast cancer, typically employs H&E and P63 dyes. However, P63's tissue damage and high cost necessitate alternative methods. This study introduces xAI-CycleGAN, an advanced architecture combining Mask CycleGAN with explainability features and structure-preserving capabilities for transforming H&E stained breast tissue images into P63-like images. The architecture allows for output editing, enhancing resemblance to actual images and enabling further model refinement. We showcase xAI-CycleGAN's efficacy in maintaining structural integrity and generating high-quality images. Additionally, a histopathologist survey indicates the generated images' realism is often comparable to actual images, validating our model's high-quality output.

When engaging in strategic decision-making, we are frequently confronted with overwhelming information and data. The situation can be further complicated when certain pieces of evidence contradict each other or become paradoxical. The primary challenge is how to determine which information can be trusted when we adopt Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for decision-making. This issue is known as deciding what to decide or Trustworthy AI. However, the AI system itself is often considered an opaque black box. We propose a new approach to address this issue by introducing a novel framework of Trustworthy AI (TAI) encompassing three crucial components of AI: representation space, loss function, and optimizer. Each component is loosely coupled with four TAI properties. Altogether, the framework consists of twelve TAI properties. We aim to use this framework to conduct the TAI experiments by quantitive and qualitative research methods to satisfy TAI properties for the decision-making context. The framework allows us to formulate an optimal prediction model trained by the given dataset for applying the strategic investment decision of credit default swaps (CDS) in the technology sector. Finally, we provide our view of the future direction of TAI research

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.