With the advancement of technology for artificial intelligence (AI) based solutions and analytics compute engines, machine learning (ML) models are getting more complex day by day. Most of these models are generally used as a black box without user interpretability. Such complex ML models make it more difficult for people to understand or trust their predictions. There are variety of frameworks using explainable AI (XAI) methods to demonstrate explainability and interpretability of ML models to make their predictions more trustworthy. In this manuscript, we propose a methodology that we define as Local Interpretable Model Agnostic Shap Explanations (LIMASE). This proposed ML explanation technique uses Shapley values under the LIME paradigm to achieve the following (a) explain prediction of any model by using a locally faithful and interpretable decision tree model on which the Tree Explainer is used to calculate the shapley values and give visually interpretable explanations.

Accumulated Local Effect (ALE) is a method for accurately estimating feature effects, overcoming fundamental failure modes of previously-existed methods, such as Partial Dependence Plots. However, ALE's approximation, i.e. the method for estimating ALE from the limited samples of the training set, faces two weaknesses. First, it does not scale well in cases where the input has high dimensionality, and, second, it is vulnerable to out-of-distribution (OOD) sampling when the training set is relatively small. In this paper, we propose a novel ALE approximation, called Differential Accumulated Local Effects (DALE), which can be used in cases where the ML model is differentiable and an auto-differentiable framework is accessible. Our proposal has significant computational advantages, making feature effect estimation applicable to high-dimensional Machine Learning scenarios with near-zero computational overhead. Furthermore, DALE does not create artificial points for calculating the feature effect, resolving misleading estimations due to OOD sampling. Finally, we formally prove that, under some hypotheses, DALE is an unbiased estimator of ALE and we present a method for quantifying the standard error of the explanation. Experiments using both synthetic and real datasets demonstrate the value of the proposed approach.

Language Models (LMs) can perform new tasks by adapting to a few in-context examples. For humans, explanations that connect examples to task principles can improve learning. We therefore investigate whether explanations of few-shot examples can help LMs. We annotate questions from 40 challenging tasks with answer explanations, and various matched control explanations. We evaluate how different types of explanations, instructions, and controls affect zero- and few-shot performance. We analyze these results using statistical multilevel modeling techniques that account for the nested dependencies among conditions, tasks, prompts, and models. We find that explanations can improve performance -- even without tuning. Furthermore, explanations hand-tuned for performance on a small validation set offer substantially larger benefits, and building a prompt by selecting examples and explanations together substantially improves performance over selecting examples alone. Finally, even untuned explanations outperform carefully matched controls, suggesting that the benefits are due to the link between an example and its explanation, rather than lower-level features. However, only large models benefit. In summary, explanations can support the in-context learning of large LMs on challenging tasks.

The fields of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and Interactive Machine Learning (IML) have traditionally been explored separately. On the one hand, XAI aims at making AI and Machine Learning (ML) systems more transparent and understandable, chiefly by equipping them with algorithms for explaining their own decisions [66, 125]. Such explanations are instrumental for enabling stakeholders to inspect the system's knowledge and reasoning patterns, however stakeholders only participate as passive observers and have no control over the system or its behavior. On the other hand, IML focuses primarily on communication between machines and humans, and it is specifically concerned with eliciting and incorporating human feedback into the training process via intelligent user interfaces [53, 10, 109, 176, 71, 173]. IML covers a broad range of techniques for in-the-loop interaction between humans and machines, however, most research does not explicitly consider explanations. Recently, a number of works have sought integrating techniques from XAI within the IML loop. The core observation behind this line of research is that, interacting through explanations is an elegant and human-centric solution to the problem of acquiring rich human feedback, and therefore leads to higher-quality AI and ML systems, in a manner that is effective and transparent for both users and machines. In order to accomplish this vision, these works leverage either machine explanations obtained using techniques from XAI, human explanations provided as feedback by sufficiently expert annotators, or both, to define and implement a suitable interaction protocol.

In healthcare, AI systems support clinicians and patients in diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring, but many systems' poor explainability remains challenging for practical application. Overcoming this barrier is the goal of explainable AI (XAI). However, an explanation can be perceived differently and, thus, not solve the black-box problem for everyone. The domain of Human-Centered AI deals with this problem by adapting AI to users. We present a user-centered persona concept to evaluate XAI and use it to investigate end-users preferences for various explanation styles and contents in a mobile health stress monitoring application. The results of our online survey show that users' demographics and personality, as well as the type of explanation, impact explanation preferences, indicating that these are essential features for XAI design. We subsumed the results in three prototypical user personas: power-, casual-, and privacy-oriented users. Our insights bring an interactive, human-centered XAI closer to practical application.

The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) requires developers and designers of AI systems to focus on the collaboration between humans and machines. AI explanations of system behavior and reasoning are vital for effective collaboration by fostering appropriate trust, ensuring understanding, and addressing issues of fairness and bias. However, various contextual and subjective factors can influence an AI system explanation's effectiveness. This work draws inspiration from findings in cognitive psychology to understand how effective explanations can be designed. We identify four components to which explanation designers can pay special attention: perception, semantics, intent, and user & context. We illustrate the use of these four explanation components with an example of estimating food calories by combining text with visuals, probabilities with exemplars, and intent communication with both user and context in mind. We propose that the significant challenge for effective AI explanations is an additional step between explanation generation using algorithms not producing interpretable explanations and explanation communication. We believe this extra step will benefit from carefully considering the four explanation components outlined in our work, which can positively affect the explanation's effectiveness.

In recent years, Explainable AI (xAI) attracted a lot of attention as various countries turned explanations into a legal right. xAI allows for improving models beyond the accuracy metric by, e.g., debugging the learned pattern and demystifying the AI's behavior. The widespread use of xAI brought new challenges. On the one hand, the number of published xAI algorithms underwent a boom, and it became difficult for practitioners to select the right tool. On the other hand, some experiments did highlight how easy data scientists could misuse xAI algorithms and misinterpret their results. To tackle the issue of comparing and correctly using feature importance xAI algorithms, we propose Compare-xAI, a benchmark that unifies all exclusive functional testing methods applied to xAI algorithms. We propose a selection protocol to shortlist non-redundant functional tests from the literature, i.e., each targeting a specific end-user requirement in explaining a model. The benchmark encapsulates the complexity of evaluating xAI methods into a hierarchical scoring of three levels, namely, targeting three end-user groups: researchers, practitioners, and laymen in xAI. The most detailed level provides one score per test. The second level regroups tests into five categories (fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, and stress tests). The last level is the aggregated comprehensibility score, which encapsulates the ease of correctly interpreting the algorithm's output in one easy to compare value. Compare-xAI's interactive user interface helps mitigate errors in interpreting xAI results by quickly listing the recommended xAI solutions for each ML task and their current limitations. The benchmark is made available at https://karim-53.github.io/cxai/

Reasoning with legal cases, especially as conducted in common law jurisdictions such as the UK and USA, is a form of argumentation much studied in Artificial Intelligence and in computational argumentation. The formal procedure within which it is conducted and the extensive documentation which records the argument presented for each side and an assessment of these arguments make it a fruitful area for study. As described in [35], there may be several types of reasoning involved, including the use of rules, the balancing of factors, analogy and the use of policies to achieve particular purposes. All of these have been modelled in AI and Law, and this work suggests that reasoning with legal cases can been seen as going through a series of stages at which different reasoning styles are appropriate. This view will be elaborated in Section 2. One way of modelling a reasoning task [24] is to present it as a set of argumentation schemes [38]. In this paper we will use this method to articulate the reasoning required at each of the stages. Although legal reasoning is worthy of study in itself, we believe that the insights are also applicable to other, less formal, domains where it is necessary to balance reasons for and against particular options to come to a decision.

Businesses increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) systems to make decisions that can significantly affect individual rights, human safety, and critical business operations. But how do these models derive their conclusions? What data do they use? And can we trust the results? Addressing these questions is the essence of "explainability," and getting it right is becoming essential.

Recent machine learning approaches have been effective in Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. They produce robust results with a high level of accuracy. However, most of these techniques do not provide human-understandable explanations for supporting their results and decisions. They usually act as black boxes, and it is not easy to understand how decisions have been made. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which has received much interest recently, tries to provide human-understandable explanations for decision-making and trained AI models. For instance, in digital agriculture, related domains often present peculiar or input features with no link to background knowledge. The application of the data mining process on agricultural data leads to results (knowledge), which are difficult to explain. In this paper, we propose a knowledge map model and an ontology design as an XAI framework (OAK4XAI) to deal with this issue. The framework does not only consider the data analysis part of the process, but it takes into account the semantics aspect of the domain knowledge via an ontology and a knowledge map model, provided as modules of the framework. Many ongoing XAI studies aim to provide accurate and verbalizable accounts for how given feature values contribute to model decisions. The proposed approach, however, focuses on providing consistent information and definitions of concepts, algorithms, and values involved in the data mining models. We built an Agriculture Computing Ontology (AgriComO) to explain the knowledge mined in agriculture. AgriComO has a well-designed structure and includes a wide range of concepts and transformations suitable for agriculture and computing domains.