Research Papers

The lack of explainability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the first obstacles that the industry and regulators must overcome to mitigate the risks associated with the technology. The need for eXplainable AI (XAI) is evident in fields where accountability, ethics and fairness are critical, such as healthcare, credit scoring, policing and the criminal justice system. At the EU level, the notion of explainability is one of the fundamental principles that underpin the AI Act, though the exact XAI techniques and requirements are still to be determined and tested in practice. This paper explores various approaches and techniques that promise to advance XAI, as well as the challenges of implementing the principle of explainability in AI governance and policies. Finally, the paper examines the integration of XAI into EU law, emphasising the issues of standard setting, oversight, and enforcement.

Explain Any Concept: Segment Anything Meets Concept-Based Explanation

Ao Sun, Pingchuan Ma, Yuanyuan Yuan +1

EXplainable AI (XAI) is an essential topic to improve human understanding of deep neural networks (DNNs) given their black-box internals. For computer vision tasks, mainstream pixel-based XAI methods explain DNN decisions by identifying important pixels, and emerging concept-based XAI explore forming explanations with concepts (e.g., a head in an image). However, pixels are generally hard to interpret and sensitive to the imprecision of XAI methods, whereas "concepts" in prior works require human annotation or are limited to pre-defined concept sets. On the other hand, driven by large-scale pre-training, Segment Anything Model (SAM) has been demonstrated as a powerful and promotable framework for performing precise and comprehensive instance segmentation, enabling automatic preparation of concept sets from a given image. This paper for the first time explores using SAM to augment concept-based XAI. We offer an effective and flexible concept-based explanation method, namely Explain Any Concept (EAC), which explains DNN decisions with any concept. While SAM is highly effective and offers an "out-of-the-box" instance segmentation, it is costly when being integrated into defacto XAI pipelines. We thus propose a lightweight per-input equivalent (PIE) scheme, enabling efficient explanation with a surrogate model. Our evaluation over two popular datasets (ImageNet and COCO) illustrate the highly encouraging performance of EAC over commonly-used XAI methods.

The ability to explain decisions made by AI systems is highly sought after, especially in domains where human lives are at stake such as medicine or autonomous vehicles. While it is often possible to approximate the input-output relations of deep neural networks with a few human-understandable rules, the discovery of the double descent phenomena suggests that such approximations do not accurately capture the mechanism by which deep neural networks work. Double descent indicates that deep neural networks typically operate by smoothly interpolating between data points rather than by extracting a few high level rules. As a result, neural networks trained on complex real world data are inherently hard to interpret and prone to failure if asked to extrapolate. To show how we might be able to trust AI despite these problems we introduce the concept of self-explaining AI. Self-explaining AIs are capable of providing a human-understandable explanation of each decision along with confidence levels for both the decision and explanation. For this approach to work, it is important that the explanation actually be related to the decision, ideally capturing the mechanism used to arrive at the explanation. Finally, we argue it is important that deep learning based systems include a "warning light" based on techniques from applicability domain analysis to warn the user if a model is asked to extrapolate outside its training distribution. For a video presentation of this talk see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py7PVdcu7WY& .

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.

Causality and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) have developed as separate fields in computer science, even though the underlying concepts of causation and explanation share common ancient roots. This is further enforced by the lack of review works jointly covering these two fields. In this paper, we investigate the literature to try to understand how and to what extent causality and XAI are intertwined. More precisely, we seek to uncover what kinds of relationships exist between the two concepts and how one can benefit from them, for instance, in building trust in AI systems. As a result, three main perspectives are identified. In the first one, the lack of causality is seen as one of the major limitations of current AI and XAI approaches, and the "optimal" form of explanations is investigated. The second is a pragmatic perspective and considers XAI as a tool to foster scientific exploration for causal inquiry, via the identification of pursue-worthy experimental manipulations. Finally, the third perspective supports the idea that causality is propaedeutic to XAI in three possible manners: exploiting concepts borrowed from causality to support or improve XAI, utilizing counterfactuals for explainability, and considering accessing a causal model as explaining itself. To complement our analysis, we also provide relevant software solutions used to automate causal tasks. We believe our work provides a unified view of the two fields of causality and XAI by highlighting potential domain bridges and uncovering possible limitations.

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.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent in critical applications, the need for interpretable AI has grown. We introduce TokenSHAP, a novel method for interpreting LLMs by attributing importance to individual tokens or substrings within input prompts. This approach adapts Shapley values from cooperative game theory to natural language processing, offering a rigorous framework for understanding how different parts of an input contribute to a model's response. TokenSHAP leverages Monte Carlo sampling for computational efficiency, providing interpretable, quantitative measures of token importance. We demonstrate its efficacy across diverse prompts and LLM architectures, showing consistent improvements over existing baselines in alignment with human judgments, faithfulness to model behavior, and consistency. Our method's ability to capture nuanced interactions between tokens provides valuable insights into LLM behavior, enhancing model transparency, improving prompt engineering, and aiding in the development of more reliable AI systems. TokenSHAP represents a significant step towards the necessary interpretability for responsible AI deployment, contributing to the broader goal of creating more transparent, accountable, and trustworthy AI systems.

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.

Despite the fact that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has boosted the achievement of remarkable results across numerous data analysis tasks, however, this is typically accompanied by a significant shortcoming in the exhibited transparency and trustworthiness of the developed systems. In order to address the latter challenge, the so-called eXplainable AI (XAI) research field has emerged, which aims, among others, at estimating meaningful explanations regarding the employed model reasoning process. The current study focuses on systematically analyzing the recent advances in the area of Multimodal XAI (MXAI), which comprises methods that involve multiple modalities in the primary prediction and explanation tasks. In particular, the relevant AI-boosted prediction tasks and publicly available datasets used for learning/evaluating explanations in multimodal scenarios are initially described. Subsequently, a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the MXAI methods of the literature is provided, taking into account the following key criteria: a) The number of the involved modalities (in the employed AI module), b) The processing stage at which explanations are generated, and c) The type of the adopted methodology (i.e. the actual mechanism and mathematical formalization) for producing explanations. Then, a thorough analysis of the metrics used for MXAI methods evaluation is performed. Finally, an extensive discussion regarding the current challenges and future research directions is provided.

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 advance of explainable artificial intelligence, which provides reasons for its predictions, is expected to accelerate the use of deep neural networks in the real world like Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) that returns predictions on queried data with the trained model. Deep neural networks deployed in MLaaS face the threat of model extraction attacks. A model extraction attack is an attack to violate intellectual property and privacy in which an adversary steals trained models in a cloud using only their predictions. In particular, a data-free model extraction attack has been proposed recently and is more critical. In this attack, an adversary uses a generative model instead of preparing input data. The feasibility of this attack, however, needs to be studied since it requires more queries than that with surrogate datasets. In this paper, we propose MEGEX, a data-free model extraction attack against a gradient-based explainable AI. In this method, an adversary uses the explanations to train the generative model and reduces the number of queries to steal the model. Our experiments show that our proposed method reconstructs high-accuracy models -- 0.97$\times$ and 0.98$\times$ the victim model accuracy on SVHN and CIFAR-10 datasets given 2M and 20M queries, respectively. This implies that there is a trade-off between the interpretability of models and the difficulty of stealing them.