Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics.

To explain the decision of any regression and classification model, we extend the notion of probabilistic sufficient explanations (P-SE). For each instance, this approach selects the minimal subset of features that is sufficient to yield the same prediction with high probability, while removing other features. The crux of P-SE is to compute the conditional probability of maintaining the same prediction. Therefore, we introduce an accurate and fast estimator of this probability via random Forests for any data (X, Y) and show its efficiency through a theoretical analysis of its consistency. As a consequence, we extend the P-SE to regression problems. In addition, we deal with non-discrete features, without learning the distribution of X nor having the model for making predictions. Finally, we introduce local rule-based explanations for regression/classification based on the P-SE and compare our approaches w.r.t other explainable AI methods.

Fairwashing refers to the risk that an unfair black-box model can be explained by a fairer model through post-hoc explanation manipulation. In this paper, we investigate the capability of fairwashing attacks by analyzing their fidelity-unfairness trade-offs. In particular, we show that fairwashed explanation models can generalize beyond the suing group (i.e., data points that are being explained), meaning that a fairwashed explainer can be used to rationalize subsequent unfair decisions of a black-box model. We also demonstrate that fairwashing attacks can transfer across black-box models, meaning that other black-box models can perform fairwashing without explicitly using their predictions. This generalization and transferability of fairwashing attacks imply that their detection will be difficult in practice. Finally, we propose an approach to quantify the risk of fairwashing, which is based on the computation of the range of the unfairness of high-fidelity explainers.

Shapley values underlie one of the most popular model-agnostic methods within explainable artificial intelligence. These values are designed to attribute the difference between a model's prediction and an average baseline to the different features used as input to the model. Being based on solid game-theoretic principles, Shapley values uniquely satisfy several desirable properties, which is why they are increasingly used to explain the predictions of possibly complex and highly non-linear machine learning models. Shapley values are well calibrated to a user's intuition when features are independent, but may lead to undesirable, counterintuitive explanations when the independence assumption is violated. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for computing Shapley values that generalizes recent work that aims to circumvent the independence assumption. By employing Pearl's do-calculus, we show how these'causal' Shapley values can be derived for general causal graphs without sacrificing any of their desirable properties. Moreover, causal Shapley values enable us to separate the contribution of direct and indirect effects. We provide a practical implementation for computing causal Shapley values based on causal chain graphs when only partial information is available and illustrate their utility on a real-world example.

Anomaly detection is widely used for identifying critical errors and suspicious behaviors, but current methods lack interpretability. We leverage common properties of existing methods and recent advances in generative models to introduce counterfactual explanations for anomaly detection. Given an input, we generate its counterfactual as a diffusion-based repair that shows what a non-anomalous version should have looked like. A key advantage of this approach is that it enables a domain-independent formal specification of explainability desiderata, offering a unified framework for generating and evaluating explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our anomaly explainability framework, AR-Pro, on vision (MVTec, VisA) and time-series (SWaT, WADI, HAI) anomaly datasets. The code used for the experiments is accessible at: https://github.com/xjiae/arpro.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AIassisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the "black-box" nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.

Visual Counterfactual Explanations (VCEs) are an important tool to understand the decisions of an image classifier. They are "small" but "realistic" semantic changes of the image changing the classifier decision. Current approaches for the generation of VCEs are restricted to adversarially robust models and often contain non-realistic artefacts, or are limited to image classification problems with few classes. In this paper, we overcome this by generating Diffusion Visual Counterfactual Explanations (DVCEs) for arbitrary ImageNet classifiers via a diffusion process. Two modifications to the diffusion process are key for our DVCEs: first, an adaptive parameterization, whose hyperparameters generalize across images and models, together with distance regularization and late start of the diffusion process, allow us to generate images with minimal semantic changes to the original ones but different classification. Second, our cone regularization via an adversarially robust model ensures that the diffusion process does not converge to trivial non-semantic changes, but instead produces realistic images of the target class which achieve high confidence by the classifier.

D.2 Study 2: Additional Analysis Details Assessing a human-machine team's time-to-build, we test for normality and homoschedascity and do not reject the null hypothesis in either case, using Shapiro-Wilk (p > 0.05) and Levene's Test (p > 0.7). We find a significant effect between a participant's teaming ability and the participant's build speed (F (1, 26) = 23.5;

Recent advances in machine learning have led to growing interest in Explainable AI (xAI) to enable humans to gain insight into the decision-making of machine learning models. Despite this recent interest, the utility of xAI techniques has not yet been characterized in human-machine teaming. Importantly, xAI offers the promise of enhancing team situational awareness (SA) and shared mental model development, which are the key characteristics of effective human-machine teams. Rapidly developing such mental models is especially critical in ad hoc humanmachine teaming, where agents do not have a priori knowledge of others' decisionmaking strategies.

Counterfactual explanations are emerging as an attractive option for providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions. As they are deployed in critical applications (e.g. law enforcement, financial lending), it becomes important to ensure that we clearly understand the vulnerabilties of these methods and find ways to address them. However, there is little understanding of the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of counterfactual explanations. In this work, we introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. More specifically, we show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a novel objective to train seemingly fair models where counterfactual explanations find much lower cost recourse under a slight perturbation. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors. We perform experiments on loan and violent crime prediction data sets where certain subgroups achieve up to 20x lower cost recourse under the perturbation. These results raise concerns regarding the dependability of current counterfactual explanation techniques, which we hope will inspire investigations in robust counterfactual explanations.