Research Papers

Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are feeding tubes that are inserted through the nose into the stomach to deliver nutrition or medication. If not placed correctly, they can cause serious harm, even death to patients. Recent AI developments demonstrate the feasibility of robustly detecting NGT placement from Chest X-ray images to reduce risks of sub-optimally or critically placed NGTs being missed or delayed in their detection, but gaps remain in clinical practice integration. In this study, we present a human-centered approach to the problem and describe insights derived following contextual inquiry and in-depth interviews with 15 clinical stakeholders. The interviews helped understand challenges in existing workflows, and how best to align technical capabilities with user needs and expectations. We discovered the trade-offs and complexities that need consideration when choosing suitable workflow stages, target users, and design configurations for different AI proposals. We explored how to balance AI benefits and risks for healthcare staff and patients within broader organizational and medical-legal constraints. We also identified data issues related to edge cases and data biases that affect model training and evaluation; how data documentation practices influence data preparation and labelling; and how to measure relevant AI outcomes reliably in future evaluations. We discuss how our work informs design and development of AI applications that are clinically useful, ethical, and acceptable in real-world healthcare services.

A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. "Explainability" has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous "box-ticking" exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.

The recent prevalence of publicly accessible, large medical imaging datasets has led to a proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) models for cardiovascular image classification and analysis. At the same time, the potentially significant impacts of these models have motivated the development of a range of explainable AI (XAI) methods that aim to explain model predictions given certain image inputs. However, many of these methods are not developed or evaluated with domain experts, and explanations are not contextualized in terms of medical expertise or domain knowledge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework and python library, MiMICRI, that provides domain-centered counterfactual explanations of cardiovascular image classification models. MiMICRI helps users interactively select and replace segments of medical images that correspond to morphological structures. From the counterfactuals generated, users can then assess the influence of each segment on model predictions, and validate the model against known medical facts. We evaluate this library with two medical experts. Our evaluation demonstrates that a domain-centered XAI approach can enhance the interpretability of model explanations, and help experts reason about models in terms of relevant domain knowledge. However, concerns were also surfaced about the clinical plausibility of the counterfactuals generated. We conclude with a discussion on the generalizability and trustworthiness of the MiMICRI framework, as well as the implications of our findings on the development of domain-centered XAI methods for model interpretability in healthcare contexts.

Generative AI is increasingly important in software engineering, including safety engineering, where its use ensures that software does not cause harm to people. This also leads to high quality requirements for generative AI. Therefore, the simplistic use of Large Language Models (LLMs) alone will not meet these quality demands. It is crucial to develop more advanced and sophisticated approaches that can effectively address the complexities and safety concerns of software systems. Ultimately, humans must understand and take responsibility for the suggestions provided by generative AI to ensure system safety. To this end, we present an efficient, hybrid strategy to leverage LLMs for safety analysis and Human-AI codesign. In particular, we develop a customized LLM agent that uses elements of prompt engineering, heuristic reasoning, and retrieval-augmented generation to solve tasks associated with predefined safety concepts, in interaction with a system model graph. The reasoning is guided by a cascade of micro-decisions that help preserve structured information. We further suggest a graph verbalization which acts as an intermediate representation of the system model to facilitate LLM-graph interactions. Selected pairs of prompts and responses relevant for safety analytics illustrate our method for the use case of a simplified automated driving system.

On the Standardization of Behavioral Use Clauses and Their Adoption for Responsible Licensing of AI

Daniel McDuff, Tim Korjakow, Scott Cambo +9

Growing concerns over negligent or malicious uses of AI have increased the appetite for tools that help manage the risks of the technology. In 2018, licenses with behaviorial-use clauses (commonly referred to as Responsible AI Licenses) were proposed to give developers a framework for releasing AI assets while specifying their users to mitigate negative applications. As of the end of 2023, on the order of 40,000 software and model repositories have adopted responsible AI licenses licenses. Notable models licensed with behavioral use clauses include BLOOM (language) and LLaMA2 (language), Stable Diffusion (image), and GRID (robotics). This paper explores why and how these licenses have been adopted, and why and how they have been adapted to fit particular use cases. We use a mixed-methods methodology of qualitative interviews, clustering of license clauses, and quantitative analysis of license adoption. Based on this evidence we take the position that responsible AI licenses need standardization to avoid confusing users or diluting their impact. At the same time, customization of behavioral restrictions is also appropriate in some contexts (e.g., medical domains). We advocate for ``standardized customization'' that can meet users' needs and can be supported via tooling.

Every AI system that makes decisions about people has a group of stakeholders that are personally affected by these decisions. However, explanations of AI systems rarely address the information needs of this stakeholder group, who often are AI novices. This creates a gap between conveyed information and information that matters to those who are impacted by the system's decisions, such as domain experts and decision subjects. To address this, we present the "XAI Novice Question Bank," an extension of the XAI Question Bank containing a catalog of information needs from AI novices in two use cases: employment prediction and health monitoring. The catalog covers the categories of data, system context, system usage, and system specifications. We gathered information needs through task-based interviews where participants asked questions about two AI systems to decide on their adoption and received verbal explanations in response. Our analysis showed that participants' confidence increased after receiving explanations but that their understanding faced challenges. These included difficulties in locating information and in assessing their own understanding, as well as attempts to outsource understanding. Additionally, participants' prior perceptions of the systems' risks and benefits influenced their information needs. Participants who perceived high risks sought explanations about the intentions behind a system's deployment, while those who perceived low risks rather asked about the system's operation. Our work aims to support the inclusion of AI novices in explainability efforts by highlighting their information needs, aims, and challenges. We summarize our findings as five key implications that can inform the design of future explanations for lay stakeholder audiences.

Open Datasheets: Machine-readable Documentation for Open Datasets and Responsible AI Assessments

Anthony Cintron Roman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Valerie See +4

This paper introduces a no-code, machine-readable documentation framework for open datasets, with a focus on responsible AI (RAI) considerations. The framework aims to improve comprehensibility, and usability of open datasets, facilitating easier discovery and use, better understanding of content and context, and evaluation of dataset quality and accuracy. The proposed framework is designed to streamline the evaluation of datasets, helping researchers, data scientists, and other open data users quickly identify datasets that meet their needs and organizational policies or regulations. The paper also discusses the implementation of the framework and provides recommendations to maximize its potential. The framework is expected to enhance the quality and reliability of data used in research and decision-making, fostering the development of more responsible and trustworthy AI systems.

Importance estimators are explainability methods that quantify feature importance for deep neural networks (DNN). In vision transformers (ViT), the self-attention mechanism naturally leads to attention maps, which are sometimes interpreted as importance scores that indicate which input features ViT models are focusing on. However, attention maps do not account for signals from downstream tasks. To generate explanations that are sensitive to downstream tasks, we have developed class-discriminative attention maps (CDAM), a gradient-based extension that estimates feature importance with respect to a known class or a latent concept. CDAM scales attention scores by how relevant the corresponding tokens are for the predictions of a classifier head. In addition to targeting the supervised classifier, CDAM can explain an arbitrary concept shared by selected samples by measuring similarity in the latent space of ViT. Additionally, we introduce Smooth CDAM and Integrated CDAM, which average a series of CDAMs with slightly altered tokens. Our quantitative benchmarks include correctness, compactness, and class sensitivity, in comparison to 7 other importance estimators. Vanilla, Smooth, and Integrated CDAM excel across all three benchmarks. In particular, our results suggest that existing importance estimators may not provide sufficient class-sensitivity. We demonstrate the utility of CDAM in medical images by training and explaining malignancy and biomarker prediction models based on lung Computed Tomography (CT) scans. Overall, CDAM is shown to be highly class-discriminative and semantically relevant, while providing compact explanations.

US corporations regularly spend millions of dollars reviewing electronically-stored documents in legal matters. Recently, attorneys apply text classification to efficiently cull massive volumes of data to identify responsive documents for use in these matters. While text classification is regularly used to reduce the discovery costs of legal matters, it also faces a perception challenge: amongst lawyers, this technology is sometimes looked upon as a "black box". Put simply, no extra information is provided for attorneys to understand why documents are classified as responsive. In recent years, explainable machine learning has emerged as an active research area. In an explainable machine learning system, predictions or decisions made by a machine learning model are human understandable. In legal 'document review' scenarios, a document is responsive, because one or more of its small text snippets are deemed responsive. In these scenarios, if these responsive snippets can be located, then attorneys could easily evaluate the model's document classification decisions - this is especially important in the field of responsible AI. Our prior research identified that predictive models created using annotated training text snippets improved the precision of a model when compared to a model created using all of a set of documents' text as training. While interesting, manually annotating training text snippets is not generally practical during a legal document review. However, small increases in precision can drastically decrease the cost of large document reviews. Automating the identification of training text snippets without human review could then make the application of training text snippet-based models a practical approach.

This study is focused on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence and its application in the United States, the paper highlights the impact AI has in every sector of the US economy and multiple facets of the technological space and the resultant effect on entities spanning businesses, government, academia, and civil society. There is a need for ethical considerations as these entities are beginning to depend on AI for delivering various crucial tasks, which immensely influence their operations, decision-making, and interactions with each other. The adoption of ethical principles, guidelines, and standards of work is therefore required throughout the entire process of AI development, deployment, and usage to ensure responsible and ethical AI practices. Our discussion explores eleven fundamental 'ethical principles' structured as overarching themes. These encompass Transparency, Justice, Fairness, Equity, Non- Maleficence, Responsibility, Accountability, Privacy, Beneficence, Freedom, Autonomy, Trust, Dignity, Sustainability, and Solidarity. These principles collectively serve as a guiding framework, directing the ethical path for the responsible development, deployment, and utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across diverse sectors and entities within the United States. The paper also discusses the revolutionary impact of AI applications, such as Machine Learning, and explores various approaches used to implement AI ethics. This examination is crucial to address the growing concerns surrounding the inherent risks associated with the widespread use of artificial intelligence.

Explaining Speech Classification Models via Word-Level Audio Segments and Paralinguistic Features

Eliana Pastor, Alkis Koudounas, Giuseppe Attanasio +2

Recent advances in eXplainable AI (XAI) have provided new insights into how models for vision, language, and tabular data operate. However, few approaches exist for understanding speech models. Existing work focuses on a few spoken language understanding (SLU) tasks, and explanations are difficult to interpret for most users. We introduce a new approach to explain speech classification models. We generate easy-to-interpret explanations via input perturbation on two information levels. 1) Word-level explanations reveal how each word-related audio segment impacts the outcome. 2) Paralinguistic features (e.g., prosody and background noise) answer the counterfactual: ``What would the model prediction be if we edited the audio signal in this way?'' We validate our approach by explaining two state-of-the-art SLU models on two speech classification tasks in English and Italian. Our findings demonstrate that the explanations are faithful to the model's inner workings and plausible to humans. Our method and findings pave the way for future research on interpreting speech models.

Recent legislation proposals have significantly increased the demand for eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in many businesses, especially in so-called `high-risk' domains, such as recruitment. Within recruitment, AI has become commonplace, mainly in the form of job recommender systems (JRSs), which try to match candidates to vacancies, and vice versa. However, common XAI techniques often fall short in this domain due to the different levels and types of expertise of the individuals involved, making explanations difficult to generalize. To determine the explanation preferences of the different stakeholder types - candidates, recruiters, and companies - we created and validated a semi-structured interview guide. Using grounded theory, we structurally analyzed the results of these interviews and found that different stakeholder types indeed have strongly differing explanation preferences. Candidates indicated a preference for brief, textual explanations that allow them to quickly judge potential matches. On the other hand, hiring managers preferred visual graph-based explanations that provide a more technical and comprehensive overview at a glance. Recruiters found more exhaustive textual explanations preferable, as those provided them with more talking points to convince both parties of the match. Based on these findings, we describe guidelines on how to design an explanation interface that fulfills the requirements of all three stakeholder types. Furthermore, we provide the validated interview guide, which can assist future research in determining the explanation preferences of different stakeholder types.