In recent years there has been increased use of machine learning (ML) techniques within mathematics, including symbolic computation where it may be applied safely to optimise or select algorithms. This paper explores whether using explainable AI (XAI) techniques on such ML models can offer new insight for symbolic computation, inspiring new implementations within computer algebra systems that do not directly call upon AI tools. We present a case study on the use of ML to select the variable ordering for cylindrical algebraic decomposition. It has already been demonstrated that ML can make the choice well, but here we show how the SHAP tool for explainability can be used to inform new heuristics of a size and complexity similar to those human-designed heuristics currently commonly used in symbolic computation.

We often see the term explainable in the titles of papers that describe applications based on artificial intelligence (AI). However, the literature in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) indicates that explanations in XAI are application- and domain-specific, hence requiring evaluation whenever they are employed to explain a model that makes decisions for a specific application problem. Additionally, the literature reveals that the performance of post-hoc methods, particularly feature attribution methods, varies substantially hinting that they do not represent a solution to AI explainability. Therefore, when using XAI methods, the quality and suitability of their information outputs should be evaluated within the specific application. For these reasons, we used a scoping review methodology to investigate papers that apply AI models and adopt methods to generate post-hoc explanations while referring to said models as explainable. This paper investigates whether the term explainable model is adopted by authors under the assumption that incorporating a post-hoc XAI method suffices to characterize a model as explainable. To inspect this problem, our review analyzes whether these papers conducted evaluations. We found that 81% of the application papers that refer to their approaches as an explainable model do not conduct any form of evaluation on the XAI method they used.

We present DR-HAI -- a novel argumentation-based framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in human-aware planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting an argumentation-based dialogue paradigm, DR-HAI enables interactive reconciliation to address knowledge discrepancies between an explainer and an explainee. We formally describe the operational semantics of DR-HAI, provide theoretical guarantees, and empirically evaluate its efficacy. Our findings suggest that DR-HAI offers a promising direction for fostering effective human-AI interactions.

Score-based explainable machine-learning techniques are often used to understand the logic behind black-box models. However, such explanation techniques are often computationally expensive, which limits their application in time-critical contexts. Therefore, we propose and investigate the use of computationally less costly regression models for approximating the output of score-based explanation techniques, such as SHAP. Moreover, validity guarantees for the approximated values are provided by the employed inductive conformal prediction framework. We propose several non-conformity measures designed to take the difficulty of approximating the explanations into account while keeping the computational cost low. We present results from a large-scale empirical investigation, in which the approximate explanations generated by our proposed models are evaluated with respect to efficiency (interval size). The results indicate that the proposed method can significantly improve execution time compared to the fast version of SHAP, TreeSHAP. The results also suggest that the proposed method can produce tight intervals, while providing validity guarantees. Moreover, the proposed approach allows for comparing explanations of different approximation methods and selecting a method based on how informative (tight) are the predicted intervals.

The ability to cope accurately and fast with Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) samples is crucial in real-world safety demanding applications. In this work we first study the interplay between critical points of 3D point clouds and OOD samples. Our findings are that common corruptions and outliers are often interpreted as critical points. We generalize the notion of critical points into importance measures. We show that training a classification network based only on less important points dramatically improves robustness, at a cost of minor performance loss on the clean set. We observe that normalized entropy is highly informative for corruption analysis. An adaptive threshold based on normalized entropy is suggested for selecting the set of uncritical points. Our proposed importance measure is extremely fast to compute. We show it can be used for a variety of applications, such as Explainable AI (XAI), Outlier Removal, Uncertainty Estimation, Robust Classification and Adversarial Defense. We reach SOTA results on the two latter tasks. Code is available at: https://github.com/yossilevii100/critical_points2

Existing artificial intelligence (AI) models for diagnosing knee osteoarthritis (OA) have faced criticism for their lack of transparency and interpretability, despite achieving medical-expert-like performance. This opacity makes them challenging to trust in clinical practice. Recently, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has emerged as a specialized technique that can provide confidence in the model's prediction by revealing how the prediction is derived, thus promoting the use of AI systems in healthcare. This paper presents the first survey of XAI techniques used for knee OA diagnosis. The XAI techniques are discussed from two perspectives: data interpretability and model interpretability. The aim of this paper is to provide valuable insights into XAI's potential towards a more reliable knee OA diagnosis approach and encourage its adoption in clinical practice.

Evaluating argument strength in quantitative argumentation systems has received increasing attention in the field of abstract argumentation. The concept of acceptability degree is widely adopted in gradual semantics, however, it may not be sufficient in many practical applications. In this paper, we provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems, in which a triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength. Such a setting sheds new light on defining argument strength and provides a deeper understanding of the status of arguments. More specifically, we investigate the postulates of fuzzy labeling, which present the rationality requirements for semantics concerning the acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees. We then propose a class of fuzzy labeling semantics conforming to the above postulates and investigate the relations between fuzzy labeling semantics and existing work in the literature.

This research aims develop an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) framework to facilitate human-understandable solutions for tool wear prediction during turning. A random forest algorithm was used as the supervised Machine Learning (ML) classifier for training and binary classification using acceleration, acoustics, temperature, and spindle speed during the orthogonal tube turning process as input features. The ML classifier was used to predict the condition of the tool after the cutting process, which was determined in a binary class form indicating if the cutting tool was available or failed. After the training process, the Shapley criterion was used to explain the predictions of the trained ML classifier. Specifically, the significance of each input feature in the decision-making and classification was identified to explain the reasoning of the ML classifier predictions. After implementing the Shapley criterion on all testing datasets, the tool temperature was identified as the most significant feature in determining the classification of available versus failed cutting tools. Hence, this research demonstrates capability of XAI to provide machining operators the ability to diagnose and understand complex ML classifiers in prediction of tool wear.

Recent advancements in AI applications to healthcare have shown incredible promise in surpassing human performance in diagnosis and disease prognosis. With the increasing complexity of AI models, however, concerns regarding their opacity, potential biases, and the need for interpretability. To ensure trust and reliability in AI systems, especially in clinical risk prediction models, explainability becomes crucial. Explainability is usually referred to as an AI system's ability to provide a robust interpretation of its decision-making logic or the decisions themselves to human stakeholders. In clinical risk prediction, other aspects of explainability like fairness, bias, trust, and transparency also represent important concepts beyond just interpretability. In this review, we address the relationship between these concepts as they are often used together or interchangeably. This review also discusses recent progress in developing explainable models for clinical risk prediction, highlighting the importance of quantitative and clinical evaluation and validation across multiple common modalities in clinical practice. It emphasizes the need for external validation and the combination of diverse interpretability methods to enhance trust and fairness. Adopting rigorous testing, such as using synthetic datasets with known generative factors, can further improve the reliability of explainability methods. Open access and code-sharing resources are essential for transparency and reproducibility, enabling the growth and trustworthiness of explainable research. While challenges exist, an end-to-end approach to explainability in clinical risk prediction, incorporating stakeholders from clinicians to developers, is essential for success.

The Rash\=omon effect poses challenges for deriving reliable knowledge from machine learning models. This study examined the influence of sample size on explanations from models in a Rash\=omon set using SHAP. Experiments on 5 public datasets showed that explanations gradually converged as the sample size increased. Explanations from <128 samples exhibited high variability, limiting reliable knowledge extraction. However, agreement between models improved with more data, allowing for consensus. Bagging ensembles often had higher agreement. The results provide guidance on sufficient data to trust explanations. Variability at low samples suggests that conclusions may be unreliable without validation. Further work is needed with more model types, data domains, and explanation methods. Testing convergence in neural networks and with model-specific explanation methods would be impactful. The approaches explored here point towards principled techniques for eliciting knowledge from ambiguous models.