Research Papers

Objective. This paper presents an overview of generalizable and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in deep learning (DL) for medical imaging, aimed at addressing the urgent need for transparency and explainability in clinical applications. Methodology. We propose to use four CNNs in three medical datasets (brain tumor, skin cancer, and chest x-ray) for medical image classification tasks. In addition, we perform paired t-tests to show the significance of the differences observed between different methods. Furthermore, we propose to combine ResNet50 with five common XAI techniques to obtain explainable results for model prediction, aiming at improving model transparency. We also involve a quantitative metric (confidence increase) to evaluate the usefulness of XAI techniques. Key findings. The experimental results indicate that ResNet50 can achieve feasible accuracy and F1 score in all datasets (e.g., 86.31\% accuracy in skin cancer). Furthermore, the findings show that while certain XAI methods, such as XgradCAM, effectively highlight relevant abnormal regions in medical images, others, like EigenGradCAM, may perform less effectively in specific scenarios. In addition, XgradCAM indicates higher confidence increase (e.g., 0.12 in glioma tumor) compared to GradCAM++ (0.09) and LayerCAM (0.08). Implications. Based on the experimental results and recent advancements, we outline future research directions to enhance the robustness and generalizability of DL models in the field of biomedical imaging.

We evaluate the moral alignment of LLMs with human preferences in multilingual trolley problems. Building on the Moral Machine experiment, which captures over 40 million human judgments across 200+ countries, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP. This dataset enables the assessment of LLMs' decision-making processes in diverse linguistic contexts. Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions: species, gender, fitness, status, age, and the number of lives involved. By correlating these preferences with the demographic distribution of language speakers and examining the consistency of LLM responses to various prompt paraphrasings, our findings provide insights into cross-lingual and ethical biases of LLMs and their intersection. We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems and highlighting the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives in AI ethics. The results underscore the need for further research on the integration of multilingual dimensions in responsible AI research to ensure fair and equitable AI interactions worldwide. Our code and data are at https://github.com/causalNLP/moralmachine

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as a focal point of research and application, driven by their unprecedented ability to understand and generate text with human-like quality. Even more recently, LLMs have been extended into multi-modal large language models (MM-LLMs) which extends their capabilities to deal with image, video and audio information, in addition to text. This opens up applications like text-to-video generation, image captioning, text-to-speech, and more and is achieved either by retro-fitting an LLM with multi-modal capabilities, or building a MM-LLM from scratch. This paper provides an extensive review of the current state of those LLMs with multi-modal capabilities as well as the very recent MM-LLMs. It covers the historical development of LLMs especially the advances enabled by transformer-based architectures like OpenAI's GPT series and Google's BERT, as well as the role of attention mechanisms in enhancing model performance. The paper includes coverage of the major and most important of the LLMs and MM-LLMs and also covers the techniques of model tuning, including fine-tuning and prompt engineering, which tailor pre-trained models to specific tasks or domains. Ethical considerations and challenges, such as data bias and model misuse, are also analysed to underscore the importance of responsible AI development and deployment. Finally, we discuss the implications of open-source versus proprietary models in AI research. Through this review, we provide insights into the transformative potential of MM-LLMs in various applications.

FunnyBirds: A Synthetic Vision Dataset for a Part-Based Analysis of Explainable AI Methods

Robin Hesse, Simone Schaub-Meyer, Stefan Roth

The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to uncover the inner workings of complex deep neural models. While being crucial for safety-critical domains, XAI inherently lacks ground-truth explanations, making its automatic evaluation an unsolved problem. We address this challenge by proposing a novel synthetic vision dataset, named FunnyBirds, and accompanying automatic evaluation protocols. Our dataset allows performing semantically meaningful image interventions, e.g., removing individual object parts, which has three important implications. First, it enables analyzing explanations on a part level, which is closer to human comprehension than existing methods that evaluate on a pixel level. Second, by comparing the model output for inputs with removed parts, we can estimate ground-truth part importances that should be reflected in the explanations. Third, by mapping individual explanations into a common space of part importances, we can analyze a variety of different explanation types in a single common framework. Using our tools, we report results for 24 different combinations of neural models and XAI methods, demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of the assessed methods in a fully automatic and systematic manner.

Although standard Machine Learning models are optimized for making predictions about observations, more and more they are used for making predictions about the results of actions. An important goal of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to compensate for this mismatch by offering explanations about the predictions of an ML-model which ensure that they are reliably action-guiding. As action-guiding explanations are causal explanations, the literature on this topic is starting to embrace insights from the literature on causal models. Here I take a step further down this path by formally defining the causal notions of sufficient explanations and counterfactual explanations. I show how these notions relate to (and improve upon) existing work, and motivate their adequacy by illustrating how different explanations are action-guiding under different circumstances. Moreover, this work is the first to offer a formal definition of actual causation that is founded entirely in action-guiding explanations. Although the definitions are motivated by a focus on XAI, the analysis of causal explanation and actual causation applies in general. I also touch upon the significance of this work for fairness in AI by showing how actual causation can be used to improve the idea of path-specific counterfactual fairness.

We study the XAI (explainable AI) on the face recognition task, particularly the face verification here. Face verification is a crucial task in recent days and it has been deployed to plenty of applications, such as access control, surveillance, and automatic personal log-on for mobile devices. With the increasing amount of data, deep convolutional neural networks can achieve very high accuracy for the face verification task. Beyond exceptional performances, deep face verification models need more interpretability so that we can trust the results they generate. In this paper, we propose a novel similarity metric, called explainable cosine ($xCos$), that comes with a learnable module that can be plugged into most of the verification models to provide meaningful explanations. With the help of $xCos$, we can see which parts of the two input faces are similar, where the model pays its attention to, and how the local similarities are weighted to form the output $xCos$ score. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method on LFW and various competitive benchmarks, resulting in not only providing novel and desiring model interpretability for face verification but also ensuring the accuracy as plugging into existing face recognition models.

Machine learning (ML) systems across many application areas are increasingly demonstrating performance that is beyond that of humans. In response to the proliferation of such models, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has sought to develop techniques that enhance the transparency and interpretability of machine learning methods. In this work, we consider a question not previously explored within the XAI and ML communities: Given a computational system whose performance exceeds that of its human user, can explainable AI capabilities be leveraged to improve the performance of the human? We study this question in the context of the game of Chess, for which computational game engines that surpass the performance of the average player are widely available. We introduce the Rationale-Generating Algorithm, an automated technique for generating rationales for utility-based computational methods, which we evaluate with a multi-day user study against two baselines. The results show that our approach produces rationales that lead to statistically significant improvement in human task performance, demonstrating that rationales automatically generated from an AI's internal task model can be used not only to explain what the system is doing, but also to instruct the user and ultimately improve their task performance.

In this survey, we address the key challenges in Large Language Models (LLM) research, focusing on the importance of interpretability. Driven by increasing interest from AI and business sectors, we highlight the need for transparency in LLMs. We examine the dual paths in current LLM research and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): enhancing performance through XAI and the emerging focus on model interpretability. Our paper advocates for a balanced approach that values interpretability equally with functional advancements. Recognizing the rapid development in LLM research, our survey includes both peer-reviewed and preprint (arXiv) papers, offering a comprehensive overview of XAI's role in LLM research. We conclude by urging the research community to advance both LLM and XAI fields together.

Analyzing spatially varying effects is pivotal in geographic analysis. However, accurately capturing and interpreting this variability is challenging due to the increasing complexity and non-linearity of geospatial data. Recent advancements in integrating Geographically Weighted (GW) models with artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies offer novel approaches. However, these methods often focus on single algorithms and emphasize prediction over interpretability. The recent GeoShapley method integrates machine learning (ML) with Shapley values to explain the contribution of geographical features, advancing the combination of geospatial ML and explainable AI (XAI). Yet, it lacks exploration of the nonlinear interactions between geographical features and explanatory variables. Herein, an ensemble framework is proposed to merge local spatial weighting scheme with XAI and ML technologies to bridge this gap. Through tests on synthetic datasets and comparisons with GWR, MGWR, and GeoShapley, this framework is verified to enhance interpretability and predictive accuracy by elucidating spatial variability. Reproducibility is explored through the comparison of spatial weighting schemes and various ML models, emphasizing the necessity of model reproducibility to address model and parameter uncertainty. This framework works in both geographic regression and classification, offering a novel approach to understanding complex spatial phenomena.

AHA!: Facilitating AI Impact Assessment by Generating Examples of Harms

Zana Buçinca, Chau Minh Pham, Maurice Jakesch +3

While demands for change and accountability for harmful AI consequences mount, foreseeing the downstream effects of deploying AI systems remains a challenging task. We developed AHA! (Anticipating Harms of AI), a generative framework to assist AI practitioners and decision-makers in anticipating potential harms and unintended consequences of AI systems prior to development or deployment. Given an AI deployment scenario, AHA! generates descriptions of possible harms for different stakeholders. To do so, AHA! systematically considers the interplay between common problematic AI behaviors as well as their potential impacts on different stakeholders, and narrates these conditions through vignettes. These vignettes are then filled in with descriptions of possible harms by prompting crowd workers and large language models. By examining 4113 harms surfaced by AHA! for five different AI deployment scenarios, we found that AHA! generates meaningful examples of harms, with different problematic AI behaviors resulting in different types of harms. Prompting both crowds and a large language model with the vignettes resulted in more diverse examples of harms than those generated by either the crowd or the model alone. To gauge AHA!'s potential practical utility, we also conducted semi-structured interviews with responsible AI professionals (N=9). Participants found AHA!'s systematic approach to surfacing harms important for ethical reflection and discovered meaningful stakeholders and harms they believed they would not have thought of otherwise. Participants, however, differed in their opinions about whether AHA! should be used upfront or as a secondary-check and noted that AHA! may shift harm anticipation from an ideation problem to a potentially demanding review problem. Drawing on our results, we discuss design implications of building tools to help practitioners envision possible harms.

The Inadequacy of Shapley Values for Explainability

Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

This paper develops a rigorous argument for why the use of Shapley values in explainable AI (XAI) will necessarily yield provably misleading information about the relative importance of features for predictions. Concretely, this paper demonstrates that there exist classifiers, and associated predictions, for which the relative importance of features determined by the Shapley values will incorrectly assign more importance to features that are provably irrelevant for the prediction, and less importance to features that are provably relevant for the prediction. The paper also argues that, given recent complexity results, the existence of efficient algorithms for the computation of rigorous feature attribution values in the case of some restricted classes of classifiers should be deemed unlikely at best.

In order to engender trust in AI, humans must understand what an AI system is trying to achieve, and why. To overcome this problem, the underlying AI process must produce justifications and explanations that are both transparent and comprehensible to the user. AI Planning is well placed to be able to address this challenge. In this paper we present a methodology to provide initial explanations for the decisions made by the planner. Explanations are created by allowing the user to suggest alternative actions in plans and then compare the resulting plans with the one found by the planner. The methodology is implemented in the new XAI-Plan framework.