Despite increasing progress in development of methods for generating visual counterfactual explanations, especially with the recent rise of Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models, previous works consider them as an entirely local technique. In this work, we take the first step at globalizing them. Specifically, we discover that the latent space of Diffusion Autoencoders encodes the inference process of a given classifier in the form of global directions. We propose a novel proxy-based approach that discovers two types of these directions with the use of only single image in an entirely black-box manner. Precisely, g-directions allow for flipping the decision of a given classifier on an entire dataset of images, while h-directions further increase the diversity of explanations. We refer to them in general as Global Counterfactual Directions (GCDs). Moreover, we show that GCDs can be naturally combined with Latent Integrated Gradients resulting in a new black-box attribution method, while simultaneously enhancing the understanding of counterfactual explanations. We validate our approach on existing benchmarks and show that it generalizes to real-world use-cases.

As the global population ages, the incidence of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is rising. CKD often remains asymptomatic until advanced stages, which significantly burdens both the healthcare system and patient quality of life. This research developed an explainable machine learning system for predicting CKD in patients with cardiovascular risks, utilizing medical history and laboratory data. The Random Forest model achieved the highest sensitivity of 88.2%. The study introduces a comprehensive explainability framework that extends beyond traditional feature importance methods, incorporating global and local interpretations, bias inspection, biomedical relevance, and safety assessments. Key predictive features identified in global interpretation were the use of diabetic and ACEI/ARB medications, and initial eGFR values. Local interpretation provided model insights through counterfactual explanations, which aligned with other system parts. After conducting a bias inspection, it was found that the initial eGFR values and CKD predictions exhibited some bias, but no significant gender bias was identified. The model's logic, extracted by scoped rules, was confirmed to align with existing medical literature. The safety assessment tested potentially dangerous cases and confirmed that the model behaved safely. This system enhances the explainability, reliability, and accountability of the model, promoting its potential integration into healthcare settings and compliance with upcoming regulatory standards, and showing promise for broader applications in healthcare machine learning.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is having more influence on our everyday lives, it becomes important that AI-based decisions are transparent and explainable. As a consequence, the field of eXplainable AI (or XAI) has become popular in recent years. One way to explain AI models is to elucidate the predictive importance of the input features for the AI model in general, also referred to as global explanations. Inspired by cooperative game theory, Shapley values offer a convenient way for quantifying the feature importance as explanations. However many methods based on Shapley values are built on the assumption of feature independence and often overlook causal relations of the features which could impact their importance for the ML model. Inspired by studies of explanations at the local level, we propose CAGE (Causally-Aware Shapley Values for Global Explanations). In particular, we introduce a novel sampling procedure for out-coalition features that respects the causal relations of the input features. We derive a practical approach that incorporates causal knowledge into global explanation and offers the possibility to interpret the predictive feature importance considering their causal relation. We evaluate our method on synthetic data and real-world data. The explanations from our approach suggest that they are not only more intuitive but also more faithful compared to previous global explanation methods.

This paper presents an improved system based on our prior work, designed to create explanations for autonomous robot actions during Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). Previously, we developed a system that used Large Language Models (LLMs) to interpret logs and produce natural language explanations. In this study, we expand our approach by incorporating Vision-Language Models (VLMs), enabling the system to analyze textual logs with the added context of visual input. This method allows for generating explanations that combine data from the robot's logs and the images it captures. We tested this enhanced system on a basic navigation task where the robot needs to avoid a human obstacle. The findings from this preliminary study indicate that adding visual interpretation improves our system's explanations by precisely identifying obstacles and increasing the accuracy of the explanations provided.

Current legal outcome prediction models - a staple of legal NLP - do not explain their reasoning. However, to employ these models in the real world, human legal actors need to be able to understand the model's decisions. In the case of common law, legal practitioners reason towards the outcome of a case by referring to past case law, known as precedent. We contend that precedent is, therefore, a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. In this paper, we contribute a novel method for identifying the precedent employed by legal outcome prediction models. Furthermore, by developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models with respect to the different types of precedent they rely on. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged as a critical area of research aimed at enhancing the transparency and interpretability of AI systems. Counterfactual Explanations (CFEs) offer valuable insights into the decision-making processes of machine learning algorithms by exploring alternative scenarios where certain factors differ. Despite the growing popularity of CFEs in the XAI community, existing literature often overlooks the diverse needs and objectives of users across different applications and domains, leading to a lack of tailored explanations that adequately address the different use cases. In this paper, we advocate for a nuanced understanding of CFEs, recognizing the variability in desired properties based on user objectives and target applications. We identify three primary user objectives and explore the desired characteristics of CFEs in each case. By addressing these differences, we aim to design more effective and tailored explanations that meet the specific needs of users, thereby enhancing collaboration with AI systems.

Providing explanations about how machine learning algorithms work and/or make particular predictions is one of the main tools that can be used to improve their trusworthiness, fairness and robustness. Among the most intuitive type of explanations are counterfactuals, which are examples that differ from a given point only in the prediction target and some set of features, presenting which features need to be changed in the original example to flip the prediction for that example. However, such counterfactuals can have many different features than the original example, making their interpretation difficult. In this paper, we propose to explicitly add a cardinality constraint to counterfactual generation limiting how many features can be different from the original example, thus providing more interpretable and easily understantable counterfactuals. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) can be defined as the study and implementation of methods than provide visibility into how an AI system makes decisions, predictions and executes its actions (Rai, 2020).

The field of eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced a plethora of methods (e.g., saliency-maps) to gain insight into artificial intelligence (AI) models, and has exploded with the rise of deep learning (DL). However, human-participant studies question the efficacy of these methods, particularly when the AI output is wrong. In this study, we collected and analyzed 156 human-generated text and saliency-based explanations collected in a question-answering task (N=40) and compared them empirically to state-of-the-art XAI explanations (integrated gradients, conservative LRP, and ChatGPT) in a human-participant study (N=136). Our findings show that participants found human saliency maps to be more helpful in explaining AI answers than machine saliency maps, but performance negatively correlated with trust in the AI model and explanations. This finding hints at the dilemma of AI errors in explanation, where helpful explanations can lead to lower task performance when they support wrong AI predictions.

Model explanations improve the transparency of black-box machine learning (ML) models and their decisions; however, they can also be exploited to carry out privacy threats such as membership inference attacks (MIA). Existing works have only analyzed MIA in a single "what if" interaction scenario between an adversary and the target ML model; thus, it does not discern the factors impacting the capabilities of an adversary in launching MIA in repeated interaction settings. Additionally, these works rely on assumptions about the adversary's knowledge of the target model's structure and, thus, do not guarantee the optimality of the predefined threshold required to distinguish the members from non-members. In this paper, we delve into the domain of explanation-based threshold attacks, where the adversary endeavors to carry out MIA attacks by leveraging the variance of explanations through iterative interactions with the system comprising of the target ML model and its corresponding explanation method. We model such interactions by employing a continuous-time stochastic signaling game framework. In our framework, an adversary plays a stopping game, interacting with the system (having imperfect information about the type of an adversary, i.e., honest or malicious) to obtain explanation variance information and computing an optimal threshold to determine the membership of a datapoint accurately. First, we propose a sound mathematical formulation to prove that such an optimal threshold exists, which can be used to launch MIA. Then, we characterize the conditions under which a unique Markov perfect equilibrium (or steady state) exists in this dynamic system. By means of a comprehensive set of simulations of the proposed game model, we assess different factors that can impact the capability of an adversary to launch MIA in such repeated interaction settings.

Many explainable AI (XAI) techniques strive for interpretability by providing concise salient information, such as sparse linear factors. However, users either only see inaccurate global explanations, or highly-varying local explanations. We propose to provide more detailed explanations by leveraging the human cognitive capacity to accumulate knowledge by incrementally receiving more details. Focusing on linear factor explanations (factors $\times$ values = outcome), we introduce Incremental XAI to automatically partition explanations for general and atypical instances by providing Base + Incremental factors to help users read and remember more faithful explanations. Memorability is improved by reusing base factors and reducing the number of factors shown in atypical cases. In modeling, formative, and summative user studies, we evaluated the faithfulness, memorability and understandability of Incremental XAI against baseline explanation methods. This work contributes towards more usable explanation that users can better ingrain to facilitate intuitive engagement with AI.