Breast cancer (BC) stands as one of the most common malignancies affecting women worldwide, necessitating advancements in diagnostic methodologies for better clinical outcomes. This article provides a comprehensive exploration of the application of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies continue to permeate the healthcare sector, particularly in oncology, the need for transparent and interpretable models becomes imperative to enhance clinical decision-making and patient care. This review discusses the integration of various XAI approaches, such as SHAP, LIME, Grad-CAM, and others, with machine learning and deep learning models utilized in breast cancer detection and classification. By investigating the modalities of breast cancer datasets, including mammograms, ultrasounds and their processing with AI, the paper highlights how XAI can lead to more accurate diagnoses and personalized treatment plans. It also examines the challenges in implementing these techniques and the importance of developing standardized metrics for evaluating XAI's effectiveness in clinical settings. Through detailed analysis and discussion, this article aims to highlight the potential of XAI in bridging the gap between complex AI models and practical healthcare applications, thereby fostering trust and understanding among medical professionals and improving patient outcomes.

Characteristic rules have been advocated for their ability to improve interpretability over discriminative rules within the area of rule learning. However, the former type of rule has not yet been used by techniques for explaining predictions. A novel explanation technique, called CEGA (Characteristic Explanatory General Association rules), is proposed, which employs association rule mining to aggregate multiple explanations generated by any standard local explanation technique into a set of characteristic rules. An empirical investigation is presented, in which CEGA is compared to two state-of-the-art methods, Anchors and GLocalX, for producing local and aggregated explanations in the form of discriminative rules. The results suggest that the proposed approach provides a better trade-off between fidelity and complexity compared to the two state-of-the-art approaches; CEGA and Anchors significantly outperform GLocalX with respect to fidelity, while CEGA and GLocalX significantly outperform Anchors with respect to the number of generated rules. The effect of changing the format of the explanations of CEGA to discriminative rules and using LIME and SHAP as local explanation techniques instead of Anchors are also investigated. The results show that the characteristic explanatory rules still compete favorably with rules in the standard discriminative format. The results also indicate that using CEGA in combination with either SHAP or Anchors consistently leads to a higher fidelity compared to using LIME as the local explanation technique.

Counterfactual explanation generation is a powerful method for Explainable Artificial Intelligence. It can help users understand why machine learning models make specific decisions, and how to change those decisions. Evaluating the robustness of counterfactual explanation algorithms is therefore crucial. Previous literature has widely studied the robustness based on the perturbation of input instances. However, the robustness defined from the perspective of perturbed instances is sometimes biased, because this definition ignores the impact of learning algorithms on robustness. In this paper, we propose a more reasonable definition, Weak Robust Compatibility, based on the perspective of explanation strength. In practice, we propose WRC-Test to help us generate more robust counterfactuals. Meanwhile, we designed experiments to verify the effectiveness of WRC-Test. Theoretically, we introduce the concepts of PAC learning theory and define the concept of PAC WRC-Approximability. Based on reasonable assumptions, we establish oracle inequalities about weak robustness, which gives a sufficient condition for PAC WRC-Approximability.

In the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the importance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly recognized, particularly as AI models become more integral to our lives. One notable single-instance XAI approach is counterfactual explanation, which aids users in comprehending a model's decisions and offers guidance on altering these decisions. Specifically in the context of image classification models, effective image counterfactual explanations can significantly enhance user understanding. This paper introduces a novel method for computing feature importance within the feature space of a black-box model. By employing information fusion techniques, our method maximizes the use of data to address feature counterfactual explanations in the feature space. Subsequently, we utilize an image generation model to transform these feature counterfactual explanations into image counterfactual explanations. Our experiments demonstrate that the counterfactual explanations generated by our method closely resemble the original images in both pixel and feature spaces. Additionally, our method outperforms established baselines, achieving impressive experimental results.

Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.

We introduce T-CREx, a novel model-agnostic method for local and global counterfactual explanation (CE), which summarises recourse options for both individuals and groups in the form of human-readable rules. It leverages tree-based surrogate models to learn the counterfactual rules, alongside 'metarules' denoting their regions of optimality, providing both a global analysis of model behaviour and diverse recourse options for users. Experiments indicate that T-CREx achieves superior aggregate performance over existing rule-based baselines on a range of CE desiderata, while being orders of magnitude faster to run.

Shapley value attribution (SVA) is an increasingly popular explainable AI (XAI) method, which quantifies the contribution of each feature to the model's output. However, recent work has shown that most existing methods to implement SVAs have some drawbacks, resulting in biased or unreliable explanations that fail to correctly capture the true intrinsic relationships between features and model outputs. Moreover, the mechanism and consequences of these drawbacks have not been discussed systematically. In this paper, we propose a novel error theoretical analysis framework, in which the explanation errors of SVAs are decomposed into two components: observation bias and structural bias. We further clarify the underlying causes of these two biases and demonstrate that there is a trade-off between them. Based on this error analysis framework, we develop two novel concepts: over-informative and underinformative explanations. We demonstrate how these concepts can be effectively used to understand potential errors of existing SVA methods. In particular, for the widely deployed assumption-based SVAs, we find that they can easily be under-informative due to the distribution drift caused by distributional assumptions. We propose a measurement tool to quantify such a distribution drift. Finally, our experiments illustrate how different existing SVA methods can be over- or under-informative. Our work sheds light on how errors incur in the estimation of SVAs and encourages new less error-prone methods.

Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) aims to develop AI agents that can effectively explain their decisions and actions to human users, fostering trust and facilitating human-AI collaboration. A key challenge in XAIP is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans. While existing approaches often assume a known and deterministic human model, this simplification may not capture the complexities and uncertainties of real-world interactions. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic human model through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust in the agent's arguments and certainty in their own arguments. We employ a probability weighting function inspired by prospect theory to capture the relationship between trust and perceived probability, and use a Bayesian approach to update the agent's probability distribution over possible human models. We conduct a human-subject study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in an argumentation scenario, demonstrating its ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation.

The field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) focuses on techniques for providing explanations to end-users about the decision-making processes that underlie modern-day machine learning (ML) models. Within the vast universe of XAI techniques, counterfactual (CF) explanations are often preferred by end-users as they help explain the predictions of ML models by providing an easy-to-understand & actionable recourse (or contrastive) case to individual end-users who are adversely impacted by predicted outcomes. However, recent studies have shown significant security concerns with using CF explanations in real-world applications; in particular, malicious adversaries can exploit CF explanations to perform query-efficient model extraction attacks on proprietary ML models. In this paper, we propose a model-agnostic watermarking framework (for adding watermarks to CF explanations) that can be leveraged to detect unauthorized model extraction attacks (which rely on the watermarked CF explanations). Our novel framework solves a bi-level optimization problem to embed an indistinguishable watermark into the generated CF explanation such that any future model extraction attacks that rely on these watermarked CF explanations can be detected using a null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) scheme, while ensuring that these embedded watermarks do not compromise the quality of the generated CF explanations. We evaluate this framework's performance across a diverse set of real-world datasets, CF explanation methods, and model extraction techniques, and show that our watermarking detection system can be used to accurately identify extracted ML models that are trained using the watermarked CF explanations. Our work paves the way for the secure adoption of CF explanations in real-world applications.

We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.