Smart home systems are gaining popularity as homeowners strive to enhance their living and working environments while minimizing energy consumption. However, the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled decision-making models in smart home systems faces challenges due to the complexity and black-box nature of these systems, leading to concerns about explainability, trust, transparency, accountability, and fairness. The emerging field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) addresses these issues by providing explanations for the models' decisions and actions. While state-of-the-art XAI methods are beneficial for AI developers and practitioners, they may not be easily understood by general users, particularly household members. This paper advocates for human-centered XAI methods, emphasizing the importance of delivering readily comprehensible explanations to enhance user satisfaction and drive the adoption of smart home systems. We review state-of-the-art XAI methods and prior studies focusing on human-centered explanations for general users in the context of smart home applications. Through experiments on two smart home application scenarios, we demonstrate that explanations generated by prominent XAI techniques might not be effective in helping users understand and make decisions. We thus argue for the necessity of a human-centric approach in representing explanations in smart home systems and highlight relevant human-computer interaction (HCI) methodologies, including user studies, prototyping, technology probes analysis, and heuristic evaluation, that can be employed to generate and present human-centered explanations to users.

Although counterfactual explanations are a popular approach to explain ML black-box classifiers, they are less widespread in NLP. Most methods find those explanations by iteratively perturbing the target document until it is classified differently by the black box. We identify two main families of counterfactual explanation methods in the literature, namely, (a) \emph{transparent} methods that perturb the target by adding, removing, or replacing words, and (b) \emph{opaque} approaches that project the target document into a latent, non-interpretable space where the perturbation is carried out subsequently. This article offers a comparative study of the performance of these two families of methods on three classical NLP tasks. Our empirical evidence shows that opaque approaches can be an overkill for downstream applications such as fake news detection or sentiment analysis since they add an additional level of complexity with no significant performance gain. These observations motivate our discussion, which raises the question of whether it makes sense to explain a black box using another black box.

This chapter focuses on the transformative role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) in science assessments. The paper begins with a discussion of the Framework for K-12 Science Education, which calls for a shift from conceptual learning to knowledge-in-use. This shift necessitates the development of new types of assessments that align with the Framework's three dimensions: science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. The paper further highlights the limitations of traditional assessment methods like multiple-choice questions, which often fail to capture the complexities of scientific thinking and three-dimensional learning in science. It emphasizes the need for performance-based assessments that require students to engage in scientific practices like modeling, explanation, and argumentation. The paper achieves three major goals: reviewing the current state of ML-based assessments in science education, introducing a framework for scoring accuracy in ML-based automatic assessments, and discussing future directions and challenges. It delves into the evolution of ML-based automatic scoring systems, discussing various types of ML, like supervised, unsupervised, and semi-supervised learning. These systems can provide timely and objective feedback, thus alleviating the burden on teachers. The paper concludes by exploring pre-trained models like BERT and finetuned ChatGPT, which have shown promise in assessing students' written responses effectively.

Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) have emerged as a major paradigm in explainable AI research, providing recourse recommendations for users affected by the decisions of machine learning models. However, when slight changes occur in the parameters of the underlying model, CEs found by existing methods often become invalid for the updated models. The literature lacks a way to certify deterministic robustness guarantees for CEs under model changes, in that existing methods to improve CEs' robustness are heuristic, and the robustness performances are evaluated empirically using only a limited number of retrained models. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel interval abstraction technique for parametric machine learning models, which allows us to obtain provable robustness guarantees of CEs under the possibly infinite set of plausible model changes $\Delta$. We formalise our robustness notion as the $\Delta$-robustness for CEs, in both binary and multi-class classification settings. We formulate procedures to verify $\Delta$-robustness based on Mixed Integer Linear Programming, using which we further propose two algorithms to generate CEs that are $\Delta$-robust. In an extensive empirical study, we demonstrate how our approach can be used in practice by discussing two strategies for determining the appropriate hyperparameter in our method, and we quantitatively benchmark the CEs generated by eleven methods, highlighting the effectiveness of our algorithms in finding robust CEs.

A major challenge in Explainable AI is in correctly interpreting activations of hidden neurons: accurate interpretations would help answer the question of what a deep learning system internally detects as relevant in the input, demystifying the otherwise black-box nature of deep learning systems. The state of the art indicates that hidden node activations can, in some cases, be interpretable in a way that makes sense to humans, but systematic automated methods that would be able to hypothesize and verify interpretations of hidden neuron activations are underexplored. This is particularly the case for approaches that can both draw explanations from substantial background knowledge, and that are based on inherently explainable (symbolic) methods. In this paper, we introduce a novel model-agnostic post-hoc Explainable AI method demonstrating that it provides meaningful interpretations. Our approach is based on using a Wikipedia-derived concept hierarchy with approximately 2 million classes as background knowledge, and utilizes OWL-reasoning-based Concept Induction for explanation generation. Additionally, we explore and compare the capabilities of off-the-shelf pre-trained multimodal-based explainable methods. Our results indicate that our approach can automatically attach meaningful class expressions as explanations to individual neurons in the dense layer of a Convolutional Neural Network. Evaluation through statistical analysis and degree of concept activation in the hidden layer show that our method provides a competitive edge in both quantitative and qualitative aspects compared to prior work.

In this work, we propose a novel tree-based explanation technique, PEACH (Pretrained-embedding Explanation Across Contextual and Hierarchical Structure), that can explain how text-based documents are classified by using any pretrained contextual embeddings in a tree-based human-interpretable manner. Note that PEACH can adopt any contextual embeddings of the PLMs as a training input for the decision tree. Using the proposed PEACH, we perform a comprehensive analysis of several contextual embeddings on nine different NLP text classification benchmarks. This analysis demonstrates the flexibility of the model by applying several PLM contextual embeddings, its attribute selections, scaling, and clustering methods. Furthermore, we show the utility of explanations by visualising the feature selection and important trend of text classification via human-interpretable word-cloud-based trees, which clearly identify model mistakes and assist in dataset debugging. Besides interpretability, PEACH outperforms or is similar to those from pretrained models.

Machine-learning models, which are known to accurately predict patterns from large datasets, are crucial in decision making. Consequently, counterfactual explanations-methods explaining predictions by introducing input perturbations-have become prominent. These perturbations often suggest ways to alter the predictions, leading to actionable recommendations. However, the current techniques require resolving the optimization problems for each input change, rendering them computationally expensive. In addition, traditional encoding methods inadequately address the perturbations of categorical variables in tabular data. Thus, this study propose FastDCFlow, an efficient counterfactual explanation method using normalizing flows. The proposed method captures complex data distributions, learns meaningful latent spaces that retain proximity, and improves predictions. For categorical variables, we employed TargetEncoding, which respects ordinal relationships and includes perturbation costs. The proposed method outperformed existing methods in multiple metrics, striking a balance between trade offs for counterfactual explanations. The source code is available in the following repository: https://github.com/sumugit/FastDCFlow.

A pressing issue in the adoption of AI models is the increasing demand for more human-centric explanations of their predictions. To advance towards more human-centric explanations, understanding how humans produce and select explanations has been beneficial. In this work, inspired by insights of human cognition we propose and test the incorporation of two novel biases to enhance the search for effective counterfactual explanations. Central to our methodology is the application of diffusion distance, which emphasizes data connectivity and actionability in the search for feasible counterfactual explanations. In particular, diffusion distance effectively weights more those points that are more interconnected by numerous short-length paths. This approach brings closely connected points nearer to each other, identifying a feasible path between them. We also introduce a directional coherence term that allows the expression of a preference for the alignment between the joint and marginal directional changes in feature space to reach a counterfactual. This term enables the generation of counterfactual explanations that align with a set of marginal predictions based on expectations of how the outcome of the model varies by changing one feature at a time. We evaluate our method, named Coherent Directional Counterfactual Explainer (CoDiCE), and the impact of the two novel biases against existing methods such as DiCE, FACE, Prototypes, and Growing Spheres. Through a series of ablation experiments on both synthetic and real datasets with continuous and mixed-type features, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

This paper investigates the relationship between law and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). While there is much discussion about the AI Act, for which the trilogue of the European Parliament, Council and Commission recently concluded, other areas of law seem underexplored. This paper focuses on European (and in part German) law, although with international concepts and regulations such as fiduciary plausibility checks, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and product safety and liability. Based on XAI-taxonomies, requirements for XAI-methods are derived from each of the legal bases, resulting in the conclusion that each legal basis requires different XAI properties and that the current state of the art does not fulfill these to full satisfaction, especially regarding the correctness (sometimes called fidelity) and confidence estimates of XAI-methods.

Given the sheer volume of surgical procedures and the significant rate of postoperative fatalities, assessing and managing surgical complications has become a critical public health concern. Existing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for risk surveillance and diagnosis often lack adequate interpretability, fairness, and reproducibility. To address this, we proposed an Explainable AI (XAI) framework designed to answer five critical questions: why, why not, how, what if, and what else, with the goal of enhancing the explainability and transparency of AI models. We incorporated various techniques such as Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME), SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), counterfactual explanations, model cards, an interactive feature manipulation interface, and the identification of similar patients to address these questions. We showcased an XAI interface prototype that adheres to this framework for predicting major postoperative complications. This initial implementation has provided valuable insights into the vast explanatory potential of our XAI framework and represents an initial step towards its clinical adoption.