Research Papers

In this critical survey, we analyze typical claims on the relationship between explainable AI (XAI) and fairness to disentangle the multidimensional relationship between these two concepts. Based on a systematic literature review and a subsequent qualitative content analysis, we identify seven archetypal claims from 175 scientific articles on the alleged fairness benefits of XAI. We present crucial caveats with respect to these claims and provide an entry point for future discussions around the potentials and limitations of XAI for specific fairness desiderata. Importantly, we notice that claims are often (i) vague and simplistic, (ii) lacking normative grounding, or (iii) poorly aligned with the actual capabilities of XAI. We suggest to conceive XAI not as an ethical panacea but as one of many tools to approach the multidimensional, sociotechnical challenge of algorithmic fairness. Moreover, when making a claim about XAI and fairness, we emphasize the need to be more specific about what kind of XAI method is used, which fairness desideratum it refers to, how exactly it enables fairness, and who is the stakeholder that benefits from XAI.

Blind people use artificial intelligence-enabled visual assistance technologies (AI VAT) to gain visual access in their everyday lives, but these technologies are embedded with errors that may be difficult to verify non-visually. Previous studies have primarily explored sighted users' understanding of AI output and created vision-dependent explainable AI (XAI) features. We extend this body of literature by conducting an in-depth qualitative study with 26 blind people to understand their verification experiences and preferences. We begin by describing errors blind people encounter, highlighting how AI VAT fails to support complex document layouts, diverse languages, and cultural artifacts. We then illuminate how blind people make sense of AI through experimenting with AI VAT, employing non-visual skills, strategically including sighted people, and cross-referencing with other devices. Participants provided detailed opportunities for designing accessible XAI, such as affordances to support contestation. Informed by disability studies framework of misfitting and fitting, we unpacked harmful assumptions with AI VAT, underscoring the importance of celebrating disabled ways of knowing. Lastly, we offer practical takeaways for Responsible AI practice to push the field of accessible XAI forward.

Skin diseases affect over a third of the global population, yet their impact is often underestimated. Automating skin disease classification to assist doctors with their prognosis might be difficult. Nevertheless, due to efficient feature extraction pipelines, deep learning techniques have shown much promise for various tasks, including dermatological disease identification. This study uses a skin disease dataset with 31 classes and compares it with all versions of Vision Transformers, Swin Transformers and DivoV2. The analysis is also extended to compare with benchmark convolution-based architecture presented in the literature. Transfer learning with ImageNet1k weights on the skin disease dataset contributes to a high test accuracy of 96.48\% and an F1-Score of 0.9727 using DinoV2, which is almost a 10\% improvement over this data's current benchmark results. The performance of DinoV2 was also compared for the HAM10000 and Dermnet datasets to test the model's robustness, and the trained model overcomes the benchmark results by a slight margin in test accuracy and in F1-Score on the 23 and 7 class datasets. The results are substantiated using explainable AI frameworks like GradCAM and SHAP, which provide precise image locations to map the disease, assisting dermatologists in early detection, prompt prognosis, and treatment.

The use of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems has introduced a set of challenges that need resolution. Herein, we focus on how to correctly select an XAI method, an open questions within the field. The inherent difficulty of this task is due to the lack of a ground truth. Several authors have proposed metrics to approximate the fidelity of different XAI methods. These metrics lack verification and have concerning disagreements. In this study, we proposed a novel methodology to verify fidelity metrics, using a well-known transparent model, namely a decision tree. This model allowed us to obtain explanations with perfect fidelity. Our proposal constitutes the first objective benchmark for these metrics, facilitating a comparison of existing proposals, and surpassing existing methods. We applied our benchmark to assess the existing fidelity metrics in two different experiments, each using public datasets comprising 52,000 images. The images from these datasets had a size a 128 by 128 pixels and were synthetic data that simplified the training process. All metric values, indicated a lack of fidelity, with the best one showing a 30 \% deviation from the expected values for perfect explanation. Our experimentation led us to conclude that the current fidelity metrics are not reliable enough to be used in real scenarios. From this finding, we deemed it necessary to development new metrics, to avoid the detected problems, and we recommend the usage of our proposal as a benchmark within the scientific community to address these limitations.

Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI

Upol Ehsan, Q. Vera Liao, Samir Passi +2

Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. While black-boxing AI systems can make the user experience seamless, hiding the seams risks disempowering users to mitigate fallouts from AI mistakes. Instead of hiding these AI imperfections, can we leverage them to help the user? While Explainable AI (XAI) has predominantly tackled algorithmic opaqueness, we propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing and leveraging sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We introduce the concept of Seamful XAI by (1) conceptually transferring "seams" to the AI context and (2) developing a design process that helps stakeholders anticipate and design with seams. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users, using a scenario-based co-design activity informed by real-world use cases. We found that the Seamful XAI design process helped users foresee AI harms, identify underlying reasons (seams), locate them in the AI's lifecycle, learn how to leverage seamful information to improve XAI and user agency. We share empirical insights, implications, and reflections on how this process can help practitioners anticipate and craft seams in AI, how seamfulness can improve explainability, empower end-users, and facilitate Responsible AI.

The Situate AI Guidebook: Co-Designing a Toolkit to Support Multi-Stakeholder Early-stage Deliberations Around Public Sector AI Proposals

Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu +2

Public sector agencies are rapidly deploying AI systems to augment or automate critical decisions in real-world contexts like child welfare, criminal justice, and public health. A growing body of work documents how these AI systems often fail to improve services in practice. These failures can often be traced to decisions made during the early stages of AI ideation and design, such as problem formulation. However, today, we lack systematic processes to support effective, early-stage decision-making about whether and under what conditions to move forward with a proposed AI project. To understand how to scaffold such processes in real-world settings, we worked with public sector agency leaders, AI developers, frontline workers, and community advocates across four public sector agencies and three community advocacy groups in the United States. Through an iterative co-design process, we created the Situate AI Guidebook: a structured process centered around a set of deliberation questions to scaffold conversations around (1) goals and intended use or a proposed AI system, (2) societal and legal considerations, (3) data and modeling constraints, and (4) organizational governance factors. We discuss how the guidebook's design is informed by participants' challenges, needs, and desires for improved deliberation processes. We further elaborate on implications for designing responsible AI toolkits in collaboration with public sector agency stakeholders and opportunities for future work to expand upon the guidebook. This design approach can be more broadly adopted to support the co-creation of responsible AI toolkits that scaffold key decision-making processes surrounding the use of AI in the public sector and beyond.

Despite the popularity of explainable AI, there is limited work on effective methods for unsupervised learning. We study algorithms for $k$-means clustering, focusing on a trade-off between explainability and accuracy. Following prior work, we use a small decision tree to partition a dataset into $k$ clusters. This enables us to explain each cluster assignment by a short sequence of single-feature thresholds. While larger trees produce more accurate clusterings, they also require more complex explanations. To allow flexibility, we develop a new explainable $k$-means clustering algorithm, ExKMC, that takes an additional parameter $k' \geq k$ and outputs a decision tree with $k'$ leaves. We use a new surrogate cost to efficiently expand the tree and to label the leaves with one of $k$ clusters. We prove that as $k'$ increases, the surrogate cost is non-increasing, and hence, we trade explainability for accuracy. Empirically, we validate that ExKMC produces a low cost clustering, outperforming both standard decision tree methods and other algorithms for explainable clustering. Implementation of ExKMC available at https://github.com/navefr/ExKMC.

Various recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) system failures, some of which have made the global headlines, have highlighted issues in these systems. These failures have resulted in calls for more ethical AI systems that better take into account their effects on various stakeholders. However, implementing AI ethics into practice is still an on-going challenge. High-level guidelines for doing so exist, devised by governments and private organizations alike, but lack practicality for developers. To address this issue, in this paper, we present a method for implementing AI ethics. The method, ECCOLA, has been iteratively developed using a cyclical action design research approach. The method aims at making the high-level AI ethics principles more practical, making it possible for developers to more easily implement them in practice.

With the advent of GDPR, the domain of explainable AI and model interpretability has gained added impetus. Methods to extract and communicate visibility into decision-making models have become legal requirement. Two specific types of explanations, contrastive and counterfactual have been identified as suitable for human understanding. In this paper, we propose a model agnostic method and its systemic implementation to generate these explanations using shapely additive explanations (SHAP). We discuss a generative pipeline to create contrastive explanations and use it to further to generate counterfactual datapoints. This pipeline is tested and discussed on the IRIS, Wine Quality & Mobile Features dataset. Analysis of the results obtained follows.

D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias

Bhavya Ghai, Klaus Mueller

With the rise of AI, algorithms have become better at learning underlying patterns from the training data including ingrained social biases based on gender, race, etc. Deployment of such algorithms to domains such as hiring, healthcare, law enforcement, etc. has raised serious concerns about fairness, accountability, trust and interpretability in machine learning algorithms. To alleviate this problem, we propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases from tabular datasets. It uses a graphical causal model to represent causal relationships among different features in the dataset and as a medium to inject domain knowledge. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group, say females, or a subgroup, say black females, by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network and using an array of fairness metrics. Thereafter, the user can mitigate bias by acting on the unfair causal edges. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset based on the current causal model. Users can visually assess the impact of their interactions on different fairness metrics, utility metrics, data distortion, and the underlying data distribution. Once satisfied, they can download the debiased dataset and use it for any downstream application for fairer predictions. We evaluate D-BIAS by conducting experiments on 3 datasets and also a formal user study. We found that D-BIAS helps reduce bias significantly compared to the baseline debiasing approach across different fairness metrics while incurring little data distortion and a small loss in utility. Moreover, our human-in-the-loop based approach significantly outperforms an automated approach on trust, interpretability and accountability.

Filling gaps in trustworthy development of AI

Shahar Avin, Haydn Belfield, Miles Brundage +9

The range of application of artificial intelligence (AI) is vast, as is the potential for harm. Growing awareness of potential risks from AI systems has spurred action to address those risks, while eroding confidence in AI systems and the organizations that develop them. A 2019 study found over 80 organizations that published and adopted "AI ethics principles'', and more have joined since. But the principles often leave a gap between the "what" and the "how" of trustworthy AI development. Such gaps have enabled questionable or ethically dubious behavior, which casts doubts on the trustworthiness of specific organizations, and the field more broadly. There is thus an urgent need for concrete methods that both enable AI developers to prevent harm and allow them to demonstrate their trustworthiness through verifiable behavior. Below, we explore mechanisms (drawn from arXiv:2004.07213) for creating an ecosystem where AI developers can earn trust - if they are trustworthy. Better assessment of developer trustworthiness could inform user choice, employee actions, investment decisions, legal recourse, and emerging governance regimes.

The problem of individualization is recognized as crucial in almost every field. Identifying causes of effects in specific events is likewise essential for accurate decision making. However, such estimates invoke counterfactual relationships, and are therefore indeterminable from population data. For example, the probability of benefiting from a treatment concerns an individual having a favorable outcome if treated and an unfavorable outcome if untreated. Experiments conditioning on fine-grained features are fundamentally inadequate because we can't test both possibilities for an individual. Tian and Pearl provided bounds on this and other probabilities of causation using a combination of experimental and observational data. Even though those bounds were proven tight, narrower bounds, sometimes significantly so, can be achieved when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. This has the power to solve central problems, such as explainable AI, legal responsibility, and personalized medicine, all of which demand counterfactual logic. We analyze and expand on existing research by applying bounds to the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS) along with graphical criteria and practical applications.