Explainable AI (XAI) provides methods to understand non-interpretable machine learning models. However, we have little knowledge about what legal experts expect from these explanations, including their legal compliance with, and value against European Union legislation. To close this gap, we present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI, with a specific focus on the European General Data Protection Regulation. The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain. We extract both a set of hierarchical and interconnected codes using grounded theory, and present the standpoints of the participating experts towards XAI. We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject. Finally, we present a set of recommendations for developers of XAI methods, and indications of legal areas of discussion. Among others, recommendations address the presentation, choice, and content of an explanation, technical risks as well as the end-user, while we provide legal pointers to the contestability of explanations, transparency thresholds, intellectual property rights as well as the relationship between involved parties.

A key issue in critical contexts such as medical diagnosis is the interpretability of the deep learning models adopted in decision-making systems. Research in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is trying to solve this issue. However, often XAI approaches are only tested on generalist classifier and do not represent realistic problems such as those of medical diagnosis. In this paper, we analyze a case study on skin lesion images where we customize an existing XAI approach for explaining a deep learning model able to recognize different types of skin lesions. The explanation is formed by synthetic exemplar and counter-exemplar images of skin lesion and offers the practitioner a way to highlight the crucial traits responsible for the classification decision. A survey conducted with domain experts, beginners and unskilled people proof that the usage of explanations increases the trust and confidence in the automatic decision system. Also, an analysis of the latent space adopted by the explainer unveils that some of the most frequent skin lesion classes are distinctly separated. This phenomenon could derive from the intrinsic characteristics of each class and, hopefully, can provide support in the resolution of the most frequent misclassifications by human experts.