Artificial intelligence (AI) systems power the world we live in. Deep neural networks (DNNs) are able to solve tasks in an ever-expanding landscape of scenarios, but our eagerness to apply these powerful models leads us to focus on their performance and deprioritises our ability to understand them. Current research in the field of explainable AI tries to bridge this gap by developing various perturbation or gradient-based explanation techniques. For images, these techniques fail to fully capture and convey the semantic information needed to elucidate why the model makes the predictions it does. In this work, we develop a new form of explanation that is radically different in nature from current explanation methods, such as Grad-CAM.

The energy transition introduces more volatile energy sources into the power grids. In this context, power transfer between different synchronous areas through High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) links becomes increasingly important. Such links can balance volatile generation by enabling long-distance transport or by leveraging their fast control behavior. Here, we investigate the interaction of power imbalances - represented through the power grid frequency - and power flows on HVDC links between synchronous areas in Europe. We use explainable machine learning to identify key dependencies and disentangle the interaction of critical features. Our results show that market-based HVDC flows introduce deterministic frequency deviations, which however can be mitigated through strict ramping limits. Moreover, varying HVDC operation modes strongly affect the interaction with the grid. In particular, we show that load-frequency control via HVDC links can both have control-like or disturbance-like impacts on frequency stability.

Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used to address interpretability, recourse, and bias in AI decisions. However, we do not know how well counterfactual explanations help users to understand a systems decisions, since no large scale user studies have compared their efficacy to other sorts of explanations such as causal explanations (which have a longer track record of use in rule based and decision tree models). It is also unknown whether counterfactual explanations are equally effective for categorical as for continuous features, although current methods assume they do. Hence, in a controlled user study with 127 volunteer participants, we tested the effects of counterfactual and causal explanations on the objective accuracy of users predictions of the decisions made by a simple AI system, and participants subjective judgments of satisfaction and trust in the explanations. We discovered a dissociation between objective and subjective measures: counterfactual explanations elicit higher accuracy of predictions than no-explanation control descriptions but no higher accuracy than causal explanations, yet counterfactual explanations elicit greater satisfaction and trust than causal explanations. We also found that users understand explanations referring to categorical features more readily than those referring to continuous features. We discuss the implications of these findings for current and future counterfactual methods in XAI.

Counterfactual explanations have been widely studied in explainability, with a range of application dependent methods emerging in fairness, recourse and model understanding. However, the major shortcoming associated with these methods is their inability to provide explanations beyond the local or instance-level. While some works touch upon the notion of a global explanation, typically suggesting to aggregate masses of local explanations in the hope of ascertaining global properties, few provide frameworks that are either reliable or computationally tractable. Meanwhile, practitioners are requesting more efficient and interactive explainability tools. We take this opportunity to investigate existing global methods, with a focus on implementing and improving Actionable Recourse Summaries (AReS), the only known global counterfactual explanation framework for recourse.

DARPA, In-Q-Tel, US National Laboratories (examples: Argonne, Oak Ridge) are famous government funding agencies for deep tech on the forward boundaries, the near impossible, that have globally transformative solutions. The Internet is a prime example where more than 70% of the 7.8 billion population are online in 2022, closing in on 7 hours daily mobile usage, and global wealth of $500 Trillion is powered by the Internet. There is convergence between the early bets led by government funding agencies and the largest corporations and their investments. An example is from 2015, where I was invited to help the top 100 CEOs, representing nearly $100 Trillion in assets under management, to look ten years into the future for their investments. The resulting working groups, and private summits resulted in the member companies investing in all the areas identified: quantum computing, block chain, cybersecurity, big data, privacy and data, AI/ML, future in fintech, financial inclusion, ...

DARPA, In-Q-Tel, US National Laboratories (examples: Argonne, Oak Ridge) are famous government funding agencies for deep tech on the forward boundaries, the near impossible, that have globally transformative solutions. The Internet is a prime example where more than 70% of the 7.8 billion population are online in 2022, closing in on 7 hours daily mobile usage, and global wealth of $500 Trillion is powered by the Internet. There is convergence between the early bets led by government funding agencies and the largest corporations and their investments. An example is from 2015, where I was invited to help the top 100 CEOs, representing nearly $100 Trillion in assets under management, to look ten years into the future for their investments. The resulting working groups, and private summits resulted in the member companies investing in all the areas identified: quantum computing, block chain, cybersecurity, big data, privacy and data, AI/ML, future in fintech, financial inclusion, ...

For example, social media platforms employ machine learning to keep their users engaged and some -- like Facebook and Twitter -- collect users' data …

Bio: Upol Ehsan cares about people first, technology second. He is a doctoral candidate in the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech and an affiliate at the Data & Society Research Institute. Combining his expertise in AI and background in Philosophy, his work in Explainable AI (XAI) aims to foster a future where anyone, regardless of their background, can use AI-powered technology with dignity. Actively publishing in top peer-reviewed venues like CHI, his work has received multiple awards and been covered in major media outlets. Bridging industry and academia, he serves on multiple program committees in HCI and AI conferences (e.g., DIS, IUI, NeurIPS) and actively connects these communities (e.g, the widely attended HCXAI workshop at CHI).

Explanation methods and their evaluation have become a significant issue in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) due to the recent surge of opaque AI models in decision support systems (DSS). Since the most accurate AI models are opaque with low transparency and comprehensibility, explanations are essential for bias detection and control of uncertainty. There are a plethora of criteria to choose from when evaluating explanation method quality. However, since existing criteria focus on evaluating single explanation methods, it is not obvious how to compare the quality of different methods. This lack of consensus creates a critical shortage of rigour in the field, although little is written about comparative evaluations of explanation methods. In this paper, we have conducted a semi-systematic meta-survey over fifteen literature surveys covering the evaluation of explainability to identify existing criteria usable for comparative evaluations of explanation methods. The main contribution in the paper is the suggestion to use appropriate trust as a criterion to measure the outcome of the subjective evaluation criteria and consequently make comparative evaluations possible. We also present a model of explanation quality aspects. In the model, criteria with similar definitions are grouped and related to three identified aspects of quality; model, explanation, and user. We also notice four commonly accepted criteria (groups) in the literature, covering all aspects of explanation quality: Performance, appropriate trust, explanation satisfaction, and fidelity. We suggest the model be used as a chart for comparative evaluations to create more generalisable research in explanation quality.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have found their way into many applications with potential impact on the safety, security, and fairness of human-machine-systems. Such require basic understanding and sufficient trust by the users. This motivated the research field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), i.e. finding methods for opening the "black-boxes" DNNs represent. For the computer vision domain in specific, practical assessment of DNNs requires a globally valid association of human interpretable concepts with internals of the model. The research field of concept (embedding) analysis (CA) tackles this problem: CA aims to find global, assessable associations of humanly interpretable semantic concepts (e.g., eye, bearded) with internal representations of a DNN. This work establishes a general definition of CA and a taxonomy for CA methods, uniting several ideas from literature. That allows to easily position and compare CA approaches. Guided by the defined notions, the current state-of-the-art research regarding CA methods and interesting applications are reviewed. More than thirty relevant methods are discussed, compared, and categorized. Finally, for practitioners, a survey of fifteen datasets is provided that have been used for supervised concept analysis. Open challenges and research directions are pointed out at the end.