Research Papers

Explainable AI Reloaded: Challenging the XAI Status Quo in the Era of Large Language Models

Upol Ehsan, Mark O. Riedl

When the initial vision of Explainable (XAI) was articulated, the most popular framing was to open the (proverbial) "black-box" of AI so that we could understand the inner workings. With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), the very ability to open the black-box is increasingly limited especially when it comes to non-AI expert end-users. In this paper, we challenge the assumption of "opening" the black-box in the LLM era and argue for a shift in our XAI expectations. Highlighting the epistemic blind spots of an algorithm-centered XAI view, we argue that a human-centered perspective can be a path forward. We operationalize the argument by synthesizing XAI research along three dimensions: explainability outside the black-box, explainability around the edges of the black box, and explainability that leverages infrastructural seams. We conclude with takeaways that reflexively inform XAI as a domain.

Nowadays, large-scale foundation models are being increasingly integrated into numerous safety-critical applications, including human-autonomy teaming (HAT) within transportation, medical, and defence domains. Consequently, the inherent 'black-box' nature of these sophisticated deep neural networks heightens the significance of fostering mutual understanding and trust between humans and autonomous systems. To tackle the transparency challenges in HAT, this paper conducts a thoughtful study on the underexplored domain of Explainable Interface (EI) in HAT systems from a human-centric perspective, thereby enriching the existing body of research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). We explore the design, development, and evaluation of EI within XAI-enhanced HAT systems. To do so, we first clarify the distinctions between these concepts: EI, explanations and model explainability, aiming to provide researchers and practitioners with a structured understanding. Second, we contribute to a novel framework for EI, addressing the unique challenges in HAT. Last, our summarized evaluation framework for ongoing EI offers a holistic perspective, encompassing model performance, human-centered factors, and group task objectives. Based on extensive surveys across XAI, HAT, psychology, and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), this review offers multiple novel insights into incorporating XAI into HAT systems and outlines future directions.

Interval Abstractions for Robust Counterfactual Explanations

Junqi Jiang, Francesco Leofante, Antonio Rago +1

Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) have emerged as a major paradigm in explainable AI research, providing recourse recommendations for users affected by the decisions of machine learning models. However, CEs found by existing methods often become invalid when slight changes occur in the parameters of the model they were generated for. The literature lacks a way to provide exhaustive robustness guarantees for CEs under model changes, in that existing methods to improve CEs' robustness are mostly heuristic, and the robustness performances are evaluated empirically using only a limited number of retrained models. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel interval abstraction technique for parametric machine learning models, which allows us to obtain provable robustness guarantees for CEs under a possibly infinite set of plausible model changes $Δ$. Based on this idea, we formalise a robustness notion for CEs, which we call $Δ$-robustness, in both binary and multi-class classification settings. We present procedures to verify $Δ$-robustness based on Mixed Integer Linear Programming, using which we further propose algorithms to generate CEs that are $Δ$-robust. In an extensive empirical study involving neural networks and logistic regression models, we demonstrate the practical applicability of our approach. We discuss two strategies for determining the appropriate hyperparameters in our method, and we quantitatively benchmark CEs generated by eleven methods, highlighting the effectiveness of our algorithms in finding robust CEs.

Depression is a significant issue nowadays. As per the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2023, over 280 million individuals are grappling with depression. This is a huge number; if not taken seriously, these numbers will increase rapidly. About 4.89 billion individuals are social media users. People express their feelings and emotions on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, etc. These platforms contain valuable information which can be used for research purposes. Considerable research has been conducted across various social media platforms. However, certain limitations persist in these endeavors. Particularly, previous studies were only focused on detecting depression and the intensity of depression in tweets. Also, there existed inaccuracies in dataset labeling. In this research work, five types of depression (Bipolar, major, psychotic, atypical, and postpartum) were predicted using tweets from the Twitter database based on lexicon labeling. Explainable AI was used to provide reasoning by highlighting the parts of tweets that represent type of depression. Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) was used for feature extraction and training. Machine learning and deep learning methodologies were used to train the model. The BERT model presented the most promising results, achieving an overall accuracy of 0.96.

Unraveling the Dilemma of AI Errors: Exploring the Effectiveness of Human and Machine Explanations for Large Language Models

Marvin Pafla, Kate Larson, Mark Hancock

The field of eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced a plethora of methods (e.g., saliency-maps) to gain insight into artificial intelligence (AI) models, and has exploded with the rise of deep learning (DL). However, human-participant studies question the efficacy of these methods, particularly when the AI output is wrong. In this study, we collected and analyzed 156 human-generated text and saliency-based explanations collected in a question-answering task (N=40) and compared them empirically to state-of-the-art XAI explanations (integrated gradients, conservative LRP, and ChatGPT) in a human-participant study (N=136). Our findings show that participants found human saliency maps to be more helpful in explaining AI answers than machine saliency maps, but performance negatively correlated with trust in the AI model and explanations. This finding hints at the dilemma of AI errors in explanation, where helpful explanations can lead to lower task performance when they support wrong AI predictions.

Interpretable Machine Learning for Survival Analysis

Sophie Hanna Langbein, Mateusz Krzyziński, Mikołaj Spytek +3

With the spread and rapid advancement of black box machine learning models, the field of interpretable machine learning (IML) or explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has become increasingly important over the last decade. This is particularly relevant for survival analysis, where the adoption of IML techniques promotes transparency, accountability and fairness in sensitive areas, such as clinical decision making processes, the development of targeted therapies, interventions or in other medical or healthcare related contexts. More specifically, explainability can uncover a survival model's potential biases and limitations and provide more mathematically sound ways to understand how and which features are influential for prediction or constitute risk factors. However, the lack of readily available IML methods may have deterred medical practitioners and policy makers in public health from leveraging the full potential of machine learning for predicting time-to-event data. We present a comprehensive review of the limited existing amount of work on IML methods for survival analysis within the context of the general IML taxonomy. In addition, we formally detail how commonly used IML methods, such as such as individual conditional expectation (ICE), partial dependence plots (PDP), accumulated local effects (ALE), different feature importance measures or Friedman's H-interaction statistics can be adapted to survival outcomes. An application of several IML methods to real data on data on under-5 year mortality of Ghanaian children from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program serves as a tutorial or guide for researchers, on how to utilize the techniques in practice to facilitate understanding of model decisions or predictions.

The advancement of deep learning in human activity recognition (HAR) using 3D skeleton data is critical for applications in healthcare, security, sports, and human-computer interaction. This paper tackles a well-known gap in the field, which is the lack of testing in the applicability and reliability of XAI evaluation metrics in the skeleton-based HAR domain. We have tested established XAI metrics namely faithfulness and stability on Class Activation Mapping (CAM) and Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) to address this problem. The study also introduces a perturbation method that respects human biomechanical constraints to ensure realistic variations in human movement. Our findings indicate that \textit{faithfulness} may not be a reliable metric in certain contexts, such as with the EfficientGCN model. Conversely, stability emerges as a more dependable metric when there is slight input data perturbations. CAM and Grad-CAM are also found to produce almost identical explanations, leading to very similar XAI metric performance. This calls for the need for more diversified metrics and new XAI methods applied in skeleton-based HAR.

Facial expression recognition is vital for human behavior analysis, and deep learning has enabled models that can outperform humans. However, it is unclear how closely they mimic human processing. This study aims to explore the similarity between deep neural networks and human perception by comparing twelve different networks, including both general object classifiers and FER-specific models. We employ an innovative global explainable AI method to generate heatmaps, revealing crucial facial regions for the twelve networks trained on six facial expressions. We assess these results both quantitatively and qualitatively, comparing them to ground truth masks based on Friesen and Ekman's description and among them. We use Intersection over Union (IoU) and normalized correlation coefficients for comparisons. We generate 72 heatmaps to highlight critical regions for each expression and architecture. Qualitatively, models with pre-trained weights show more similarity in heatmaps compared to those without pre-training. Specifically, eye and nose areas influence certain facial expressions, while the mouth is consistently important across all models and expressions. Quantitatively, we find low average IoU values (avg. 0.2702) across all expressions and architectures. The best-performing architecture averages 0.3269, while the worst-performing one averages 0.2066. Dendrograms, built with the normalized correlation coefficient, reveal two main clusters for most expressions: models with pre-training and models without pre-training. Findings suggest limited alignment between human and AI facial expression recognition, with network architectures influencing the similarity, as similar architectures prioritize similar facial regions.

Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Data Mining Perspective

Haoyi Xiong, Xuhong Li, Xiaofei Zhang +5

Given the complexity and lack of transparency in deep neural networks (DNNs), extensive efforts have been made to make these systems more interpretable or explain their behaviors in accessible terms. Unlike most reviews, which focus on algorithmic and model-centric perspectives, this work takes a "data-centric" view, examining how data collection, processing, and analysis contribute to explainable AI (XAI). We categorize existing work into three categories subject to their purposes: interpretations of deep models, referring to feature attributions and reasoning processes that correlate data points with model outputs; influences of training data, examining the impact of training data nuances, such as data valuation and sample anomalies, on decision-making processes; and insights of domain knowledge, discovering latent patterns and fostering new knowledge from data and models to advance social values and scientific discovery. Specifically, we distill XAI methodologies into data mining operations on training and testing data across modalities, such as images, text, and tabular data, as well as on training logs, checkpoints, models and other DNN behavior descriptors. In this way, our study offers a comprehensive, data-centric examination of XAI from a lens of data mining methods and applications.

The allure of aesthetic appeal in images captivates our senses, yet the underlying intricacies of aesthetic preferences remain elusive. In this study, we pioneer a novel perspective by utilizing several different machine learning (ML) models that focus on aesthetic attributes known to influence preferences. Our models process these attributes as inputs to predict the aesthetic scores of images. Moreover, to delve deeper and obtain interpretable explanations regarding the factors driving aesthetic preferences, we utilize the popular Explainable AI (XAI) technique known as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Our methodology compares the performance of various ML models, including Random Forest, XGBoost, Support Vector Regression, and Multilayer Perceptron, in accurately predicting aesthetic scores, and consistently observing results in conjunction with SHAP. We conduct experiments on three image aesthetic benchmarks, namely Aesthetics with Attributes Database (AADB), Explainable Visual Aesthetics (EVA), and Personalized image Aesthetics database with Rich Attributes (PARA), providing insights into the roles of attributes and their interactions. Finally, our study presents ML models for aesthetics research, alongside the introduction of XAI. Our aim is to shed light on the complex nature of aesthetic preferences in images through ML and to provide a deeper understanding of the attributes that influence aesthetic judgements.

Forms of Understanding for XAI-Explanations

Hendrik Buschmeier, Heike M. Buhl, Friederike Kern +17

Explainability has become an important topic in computer science and artificial intelligence, leading to a subfield called Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). The goal of providing or seeking explanations is to achieve (better) 'understanding' on the part of the explainee. However, what it means to 'understand' is still not clearly defined, and the concept itself is rarely the subject of scientific investigation. This conceptual article aims to present a model of forms of understanding for XAI-explanations and beyond. From an interdisciplinary perspective bringing together computer science, linguistics, sociology, philosophy and psychology, a definition of understanding and its forms, assessment, and dynamics during the process of giving everyday explanations are explored. Two types of understanding are considered as possible outcomes of explanations, namely enabledness, 'knowing how' to do or decide something, and comprehension, 'knowing that' -- both in different degrees (from shallow to deep). Explanations regularly start with shallow understanding in a specific domain and can lead to deep comprehension and enabledness of the explanandum, which we see as a prerequisite for human users to gain agency. In this process, the increase of comprehension and enabledness are highly interdependent. Against the background of this systematization, special challenges of understanding in XAI are discussed.

When users receive either a positive or negative outcome from an automated system, Explainable AI (XAI) has almost exclusively focused on how to mutate negative outcomes into positive ones by crossing a decision boundary using counterfactuals (e.g., \textit{"If you earn 2k more, we will accept your loan application"}). Here, we instead focus on \textit{positive} outcomes, and take the novel step of using XAI to optimise them (e.g., \textit{"Even if you wish to half your down-payment, we will still accept your loan application"}). Explanations such as these that employ "even if..." reasoning, and do not cross a decision boundary, are known as semifactuals. To instantiate semifactuals in this context, we introduce the concept of \textit{Gain} (i.e., how much a user stands to benefit from the explanation), and consider the first causal formalisation of semifactuals. Tests on benchmark datasets show our algorithms are better at maximising gain compared to prior work, and that causality is important in the process. Most importantly however, a user study supports our main hypothesis by showing people find semifactual explanations more useful than counterfactuals when they receive the positive outcome of a loan acceptance.