Research Papers

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has been identified as a viable method for determining the importance of features when making predictions using Machine Learning (ML) models. In this study, we created models that take an individual's health information (e.g. their drug history and comorbidities) as inputs, and predict the probability that the individual will have an Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) adverse outcome. Using XAI, we quantified the contribution that specific drugs had on these ACS predictions, thus creating an XAI-based technique for pharmacovigilance monitoring, using ACS as an example of the adverse outcome to detect. Individuals aged over 65 who were supplied Musculo-skeletal system (anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) class M) or Cardiovascular system (ATC class C) drugs between 1993 and 2009 were identified, and their drug histories, comorbidities, and other key features were extracted from linked Western Australian datasets. Multiple ML models were trained to predict if these individuals would have an ACS related adverse outcome (i.e., death or hospitalisation with a discharge diagnosis of ACS), and a variety of ML and XAI techniques were used to calculate which features -- specifically which drugs -- led to these predictions. The drug dispensing features for rofecoxib and celecoxib were found to have a greater than zero contribution to ACS related adverse outcome predictions (on average), and it was found that ACS related adverse outcomes can be predicted with 72% accuracy. Furthermore, the XAI libraries LIME and SHAP were found to successfully identify both important and unimportant features, with SHAP slightly outperforming LIME. ML models trained on linked administrative health datasets in tandem with XAI algorithms can successfully quantify feature importance, and with further development, could potentially be used as pharmacovigilance monitoring techniques.

Practitioners from diverse occupations and backgrounds are increasingly using machine learning (ML) methods. Nonetheless, studies on ML Practitioners typically draw populations from Big Tech and academia, as researchers have easier access to these communities. Through this selection bias, past research often excludes the broader, lesser-resourced ML community -- for example, practitioners working at startups, at non-tech companies, and in the public sector. These practitioners share many of the same ML development difficulties and ethical conundrums as their Big Tech counterparts; however, their experiences are subject to additional under-studied challenges stemming from deploying ML with limited resources, increased existential risk, and absent access to in-house research teams. We contribute a qualitative analysis of 17 interviews with stakeholders from organizations which are less represented in prior studies. We uncover a number of tensions which are introduced or exacerbated by these organizations' resource constraints -- tensions between privacy and ubiquity, resource management and performance optimization, and access and monopolization. Increased academic focus on these practitioners can facilitate a more holistic understanding of ML limitations, and so is useful for prescribing a research agenda to facilitate responsible ML development for all.

An Objective Metric for Explainable AI: How and Why to Estimate the Degree of Explainability

Francesco Sovrano, Fabio Vitali

Explainable AI was born as a pathway to allow humans to explore and understand the inner working of complex systems. However, establishing what is an explanation and objectively evaluating explainability are not trivial tasks. This paper presents a new model-agnostic metric to measure the Degree of Explainability of information in an objective way. We exploit a specific theoretical model from Ordinary Language Philosophy called the Achinstein's Theory of Explanations, implemented with an algorithm relying on deep language models for knowledge graph extraction and information retrieval. To understand whether this metric can measure explainability, we devised a few experiments and user studies involving more than 190 participants, evaluating two realistic systems for healthcare and finance using famous AI technology, including Artificial Neural Networks and TreeSHAP. The results we obtained are statistically significant (with P values lower than .01), suggesting that our proposed metric for measuring the Degree of Explainability is robust in several scenarios, and it aligns with concrete expectations.

The application of machine learning to support the processing of large datasets holds promise in many industries, including financial services. However, practical issues for the full adoption of machine learning remain with the focus being on understanding and being able to explain the decisions and predictions made by complex models. In this paper, we explore explainability methods in the domain of real-time fraud detection by investigating the selection of appropriate background datasets and runtime trade-offs on both supervised and unsupervised models.

Racial disparity in academia is a widely acknowledged problem. The quantitative understanding of racial based systemic inequalities is an important step towards a more equitable research system. However, because of the lack of robust information on authors' race, few large scale analyses have been performed on this topic. Algorithmic approaches offer one solution, using known information about authors, such as their names, to infer their perceived race. As with any other algorithm, the process of racial inference can generate biases if it is not carefully considered. The goal of this article is to assess the extent to which algorithmic bias is introduced using different approaches for name based racial inference. We use information from the U.S. Census and mortgage applications to infer the race of U.S. affiliated authors in the Web of Science. We estimate the effects of using given and family names, thresholds or continuous distributions, and imputation. Our results demonstrate that the validity of name based inference varies by race/ethnicity and that threshold approaches underestimate Black authors and overestimate White authors. We conclude with recommendations to avoid potential biases. This article lays the foundation for more systematic and less biased investigations into racial disparities in science.

The rapid integration of generative AI into academic writing has prompted widespread policy responses from journals and publishers. However, the effectiveness of these policies remains unclear. Here, we analyze 5,114 journals and over 5.2 million papers to evaluate the real-world impact of AI usage guidelines. We show that despite 70% of journals adopting AI policies (primarily requiring disclosure), researchers' use of AI writing tools has increased dramatically across disciplines, with no significant difference between journals with or without policies. Non-English-speaking countries, physical sciences, and high-OA journals exhibit the highest growth rates. Crucially, full-text analysis on 164k scientific publications reveals a striking transparency gap: Of the 75k papers published since 2023, only 76 (~0.1%) explicitly disclosed AI use. Our findings suggest that current policies have largely failed to promote transparency or restrain AI adoption. We urge a re-evaluation of ethical frameworks to foster responsible AI integration in science.

Recommender Systems for Sustainability: Overview and Research Issues

Alexander Felfernig, Manfred Wundara, Thi Ngoc Trang Tran +5

Sustainability development goals (SDGs) are regarded as a universal call to action with the overall objectives of planet protection, ending of poverty, and ensuring peace and prosperity for all people. In order to achieve these objectives, different AI technologies play a major role. Specifically, recommender systems can provide support for organizations and individuals to achieve the defined goals. Recommender systems integrate AI technologies such as machine learning, explainable AI (XAI), case-based reasoning, and constraint solving in order to find and explain user-relevant alternatives from a potentially large set of options. In this article, we summarize the state of the art in applying recommender systems to support the achievement of sustainability development goals. In this context, we discuss open issues for future research.

The increasing demand for transparent and reliable models, particularly in high-stakes decision-making areas such as medical image analysis, has led to the emergence of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Post-hoc XAI techniques, which aim to explain black-box models after training, have raised concerns about their fidelity to model predictions. In contrast, Self-eXplainable AI (S-XAI) offers a compelling alternative by incorporating explainability directly into the training process of deep learning models. This approach allows models to generate inherent explanations that are closely aligned with their internal decision-making processes, enhancing transparency and supporting the trustworthiness, robustness, and accountability of AI systems in real-world medical applications. To facilitate the development of S-XAI methods for medical image analysis, this survey presents a comprehensive review across various image modalities and clinical applications. It covers more than 200 papers from three novel perspectives: 1) input explainability through the integration of explainable feature engineering and knowledge graph, 2) model explainability via attention-based learning, concept-based learning, and prototype-based learning, and 3) output explainability by providing textual explanations and visual counterfactual explanations. This paper also outlines desirable characteristics of S-XAI models for assessing explanation quality, while discussing major challenges and future research directions in developing S-XAI for medical image analysis.

Grounding and Evaluation for Large Language Models: Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned (Survey)

Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Mehrnoosh Sameki, Ankur Taly

With the ongoing rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems in high-stakes domains, ensuring the trustworthiness, safety, and observability of these systems has become crucial. It is essential to evaluate and monitor AI systems not only for accuracy and quality-related metrics but also for robustness, bias, security, interpretability, and other responsible AI dimensions. We focus on large language models (LLMs) and other generative AI models, which present additional challenges such as hallucinations, harmful and manipulative content, and copyright infringement. In this survey article accompanying our KDD 2024 tutorial, we highlight a wide range of harms associated with generative AI systems, and survey state of the art approaches (along with open challenges) to address these harms.

Responsible design of AI systems is a shared goal across HCI and AI communities. Responsible AI (RAI) tools have been developed to support practitioners to identify, assess, and mitigate ethical issues during AI development. These tools take many forms (e.g., design playbooks, software toolkits, documentation protocols). However, research suggests that use of RAI tools is shaped by organizational contexts, raising questions about how effective such tools are in practice. To better understand how RAI tools are -- and might be -- evaluated, we conducted a qualitative analysis of 37 publications that discuss evaluations of RAI tools. We find that most evaluations focus on usability, while questions of tools' effectiveness in changing AI development are sidelined. While usability evaluations are an important approach to evaluate RAI tools, we draw on evaluation approaches from other fields to highlight developer- and community-level steps to support evaluations of RAI tools' effectiveness in shaping AI development practices and outcomes.

Anomaly detection and its explanation is important in many research areas such as intrusion detection, fraud detection, unknown attack detection in network traffic and logs. It is challenging to identify the cause or explanation of why one instance is an anomaly? and the other is not due to its unbounded and lack of supervisory nature. The answer to this question is possible with the emerging technique of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). XAI provides tools and techniques to interpret and explain the output and working of complex models such as Deep Learning (DL). This paper aims to detect and explain network anomalies with XAI, kernelSHAP method. The same approach is used to improve the network anomaly detection model in terms of accuracy, recall, precision and f score. The experiment is conduced with the latest CICIDS2017 dataset. Two models are created (Model_1 and OPT_Model) and compared. The overall accuracy and F score of OPT_Model (when trained in unsupervised way) are 0.90 and 0.76, respectively.

We are witnessing the emergence of an AI economy and society where AI technologies are increasingly impacting health care, business, transportation and many aspects of everyday life. Many successes have been reported where AI systems even surpassed the accuracy of human experts. However, AI systems may produce errors, can exhibit bias, may be sensitive to noise in the data, and often lack technical and judicial transparency resulting in reduction in trust and challenges in their adoption. These recent shortcomings and concerns have been documented in scientific but also in general press such as accidents with self driving cars, biases in healthcare, hiring and face recognition systems for people of color, seemingly correct medical decisions later found to be made due to wrong reasons etc. This resulted in emergence of many government and regulatory initiatives requiring trustworthy and ethical AI to provide accuracy and robustness, some form of explainability, human control and oversight, elimination of bias, judicial transparency and safety. The challenges in delivery of trustworthy AI systems motivated intense research on explainable AI systems (XAI). Aim of XAI is to provide human understandable information of how AI systems make their decisions. In this paper we first briefly summarize current XAI work and then challenge the recent arguments of accuracy vs. explainability for being mutually exclusive and being focused only on deep learning. We then present our recommendations for the use of XAI in full lifecycle of high stakes trustworthy AI systems delivery, e.g. development, validation and certification, and trustworthy production and maintenance.