Counterfactual explanations have substantially increased in popularity in the past few years as a useful human-centric way of understanding individual black-box model predictions. While several properties desired of high-quality counterfactuals have been identified in the literature, three crucial concerns: the speed of explanation generation, robustness/sensitivity and succinctness of explanations (sparsity) have been relatively unexplored. In this paper, we present FASTER-CE: a novel set of algorithms to generate fast, sparse, and robust counterfactual explanations. The key idea is to efficiently find promising search directions for counterfactuals in a latent space that is specified via an autoencoder. These directions are determined based on gradients with respect to each of the original input features as well as of the target, as estimated in the latent space. The ability to quickly examine combinations of the most promising gradient directions as well as to incorporate additional user-defined constraints allows us to generate multiple counterfactual explanations that are sparse, realistic, and robust to input manipulations. Through experiments on three datasets of varied complexities, we show that FASTER-CE is not only much faster than other state of the art methods for generating multiple explanations but also is significantly superior when considering a larger set of desirable (and often conflicting) properties. Specifically we present results across multiple performance metrics: sparsity, proximity, validity, speed of generation, and the robustness of explanations, to highlight the capabilities of the FASTER-CE family.

Saliency map explanation for an ECG exam that is predicted to be low-quality. Red highlights the part of the image most important to the model's prediction, while purple indicates the least important area. Ana Lucic, a PhD candidate at the Information Retrieval Lab (IRLab) of the Informatics Institute of UvA, has developed a framework for explaining predictions of machine learning models that could improve heart examinations for underserved communities. The work of Lucic is part of the subfield of AI, called explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). "We need explainable AI", says Lucic, "because machine learning models are often difficult to interpret. They have complex architectures and large numbers of parameters, so it's not clear how the input contributes to the output."

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the approaches that has been proposed to analyze the collected data (e.g., vibration signals) providing a diagnosis of the asset's operating condition. It is known that models trained with labeled data (supervised) achieve excellent results, but two main problems make their application in production processes difficult: (i) impossibility or long time to obtain a sample of all operational conditions (since faults seldom happen) and (ii) high cost of experts to label all acquired data. Another limitating factor for the applicability of AI approaches in this context is the lack of interpretability of the models (black-boxes), which reduces the confidence of the diagnosis and trust/adoption from users. To overcome these problems, a new generic and interpretable approach for classifying faults in rotating machinery based on transfer learning from augmented synthetic data to real rotating machinery is here proposed, namelly FaultD-XAI (Fault Diagnosis using eXplainable AI). To provide scalability using transfer learning, synthetic vibration signals are created mimicking the characteristic behavior of failures in operation. The application of Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) with 1D Convolutional Neural Network (1D CNN) allows the interpretation of results, supporting the user in decision making and increasing diagnostic confidence. The proposed approach not only obtained promising diagnostic performance, but was also able to learn characteristics used by experts to identify conditions in a source domain and apply them in another target domain. The experimental results suggest a promising approach on exploiting transfer learning, synthetic data and explainable artificial intelligence for fault diagnosis. Lastly, to guarantee reproducibility and foster research in the field, the developed dataset is made publicly available.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly shows its potential to outperform predicate logic algorithms and human control alike. In automatically deriving a system model, AI algorithms learn relations in data that are not detectable for humans. This great strength, however, also makes use of AI methods dubious. The more complex a model, the more difficult it is for a human to understand the reasoning for the decisions. As currently, fully automated AI algorithms are sparse, every algorithm has to provide a reasoning for human operators. For data engineers, metrics such as accuracy and sensitivity are sufficient. However, if models are interacting with non-experts, explanations have to be understandable. This work provides an extensive survey of literature on this topic, which, to a large part, consists of other surveys. The findings are mapped to ways of explaining decisions and reasons for explaining decisions. It shows that the heterogeneity of reasons and methods of and for explainability lead to individual explanatory frameworks.

There is no instruction for a decision-making process. However, important decisions are usually made by analyzing tons of data to find the optimal way to solve a problem. That's where we truly rely on logic and deduction. That's why surgeons dig into anamnesis, or businesses gather key persons to see a bigger picture before making a turn. Relying on AI decision-making can significantly reduce the time spent on research and data gathering.

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.