A rapidly developing application of LLMs in XAI is to convert quantitative explanations such as SHAP into user-friendly narratives to explain the decisions made by smaller prediction models. Evaluating the narratives without relying on human preference studies or surveys is becoming increasingly important in this field. In this work we propose a framework and explore several automated metrics to evaluate LLM-generated narratives for explanations of tabular classification tasks. We apply our approach to compare several state-of-the-art LLMs across different datasets and prompt types. As a demonstration of their utility, these metrics allow us to identify new challenges related to LLM hallucinations for XAI narratives.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are a powerful technique for machine learning on graph-structured data, yet they pose interpretability challenges, especially for non-expert users. Existing GNN explanation methods often yield technical outputs such as subgraphs and feature importance scores, which are not easily understood. Building on recent insights from social science and other Explainable AI (XAI) methods, we propose GraphXAIN, a natural language narrative that explains individual predictions made by GNNs. We present a model-agnostic and explainer-agnostic XAI approach that complements graph explainers by generating GraphXAINs, using Large Language Models (LLMs) and integrating graph data, individual predictions from GNNs, explanatory subgraphs, and feature importances. We define XAI Narratives and XAI Descriptions, highlighting their distinctions and emphasizing the importance of narrative principles in effective explanations. By incorporating natural language narratives, our approach supports graph practitioners and non-expert users, aligning with social science research on explainability and enhancing user understanding and trust in complex GNN models. We demonstrate GraphXAIN's capabilities on a real-world graph dataset, illustrating how its generated narratives can aid understanding compared to traditional graph explainer outputs or other descriptive explanation methods.

The rise of deep learning in image classification has brought unprecedented accuracy but also highlighted a key issue: the use of 'shortcuts' by models. Such shortcuts are easy-to-learn patterns from the training data that fail to generalise to new data. Examples include the use of a copyright watermark to recognise horses, snowy background to recognise huskies, or ink markings to detect malignant skin lesions. The explainable AI (XAI) community has suggested using instance-level explanations to detect shortcuts without external data, but this requires the examination of many explanations to confirm the presence of such shortcuts, making it a labour-intensive process. To address these challenges, we introduce Counterfactual Frequency (CoF) tables, a novel approach that aggregates instance-based explanations into global insights, and exposes shortcuts. The aggregation implies the need for some semantic concepts to be used in the explanations, which we solve by labelling the segments of an image. We demonstrate the utility of CoF tables across several datasets, revealing the shortcuts learned from them.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) finds widespread applications across various domains, sparking concerns about fairness in its deployment. While fairness in AI remains a central concern, the prevailing discourse often emphasizes outcome-based metrics without a nuanced consideration of the differential impacts within subgroups. Bias mitigation techniques do not only affect the ranking of pairs of instances across sensitive groups, but often also significantly affect the ranking of instances within these groups. Such changes are hard to explain and raise concerns regarding the validity of the intervention. Unfortunately, these effects largely remain under the radar in the accuracy-fairness evaluation framework that is usually applied. This paper challenges the prevailing metrics for assessing bias mitigation techniques, arguing that they do not take into account the changes within-groups and that the resulting prediction labels fall short of reflecting real-world scenarios. We propose a paradigm shift: initially, we should focus on generating the most precise ranking for each subgroup. Following this, individuals should be chosen from these rankings to meet both fairness standards and practical considerations.

In today's critical domains, the predominance of black-box machine learning models amplifies the demand for Explainable AI (XAI). The widely used SHAP values, while quantifying feature importance, are often too intricate and lack human-friendly explanations. Furthermore, counterfactual (CF) explanations present `what ifs' but leave users grappling with the 'why'. To bridge this gap, we introduce XAIstories. Leveraging Large Language Models, XAIstories provide narratives that shed light on AI predictions: SHAPstories do so based on SHAP explanations to explain a prediction score, while CFstories do so for CF explanations to explain a decision. Our results are striking: over 90% of the surveyed general audience finds the narrative generated by SHAPstories convincing. Data scientists primarily see the value of SHAPstories in communicating explanations to a general audience, with 92% of data scientists indicating that it will contribute to the ease and confidence of nonspecialists in understanding AI predictions. Additionally, 83% of data scientists indicate they are likely to use SHAPstories for this purpose. In image classification, CFstories are considered more or equally convincing as users own crafted stories by over 75% of lay user participants. CFstories also bring a tenfold speed gain in creating a narrative, and improves accuracy by over 20% compared to manually created narratives. The results thereby suggest that XAIstories may provide the missing link in truly explaining and understanding AI predictions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used in more and more high-stakes domains of our life such as justice [Berk, 2012], healthcare [Callahan and Shah, 2017], and finance [Lessmann et al., 2015], increasing the need to explain these decisions and to make sure that they are aligned with how we want the decision to be made. However, the complexity of many AI systems makes them challenging to comprehend, posing a significant barrier to their implementation and oversight [Arrieta et al., 2020, Samek et al., 2019]. Legislative initiatives, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have recognized the'right for explanation' for individuals affected by algorithmic-decision making, emphasizing the legal necessity of explainability [Goodman and Flaxman, 2017]. In response, the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged, aimed at developing methods for explaining the decision-making processes of AI models [Adadi and Berrada, 2018, Holzinger et al., 2022, Xu et al., 2019]. Nevertheless, the landscape of post-hoc explanations is diverse, and each method can yield a different explanation. Furthermore, even within a single explanation method, multiple explanations can be generated for the same instance or decision. This phenomenon, known as the disagreement problem, has been studied in literature [Brughmans et al.,

Despite the success of complex machine learning algorithms, mostly justified by an outstanding performance in prediction tasks, their inherent opaque nature still represents a challenge to their responsible application. Counterfactual explanations surged as one potential solution to explain individual decision results. However, two major drawbacks directly impact their usability: (1) the isonomic view of feature changes, in which it is not possible to observe \textit{how much} each modified feature influences the prediction, and (2) the lack of graphical resources to visualize the counterfactual explanation. We introduce Counterfactual Feature (change) Importance (CFI) values as a solution: a way of assigning an importance value to each feature change in a given counterfactual explanation. To calculate these values, we propose two potential CFI methods. One is simple, fast, and has a greedy nature. The other, coined CounterShapley, provides a way to calculate Shapley values between the factual-counterfactual pair. Using these importance values, we additionally introduce three chart types to visualize the counterfactual explanations: (a) the Greedy chart, which shows a greedy sequential path for prediction score increase up to predicted class change, (b) the CounterShapley chart, depicting its respective score in a simple and one-dimensional chart, and finally (c) the Constellation chart, which shows all possible combinations of feature changes, and their impact on the model's prediction score. For each of our proposed CFI methods and visualization schemes, we show how they can provide more information on counterfactual explanations. Finally, an open-source implementation is offered, compatible with any counterfactual explanation generator algorithm. Code repository at: https://github.com/ADMAntwerp/CounterPlots

In eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual explanations are known to give simple, short, and comprehensible justifications for complex model decisions. However, we are yet to see more applied studies in which they are applied in real-world cases. To fill this gap, this study focuses on showing how counterfactuals are applied to employability-related problems which involve complex machine learning algorithms. For these use cases, we use real data obtained from a public Belgian employment institution (VDAB). The use cases presented go beyond the mere application of counterfactuals as explanations, showing how they can enhance decision support, comply with legal requirements, guide controlled changes, and analyze novel insights.

Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used as an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique to provide stakeholders of complex machine learning algorithms with explanations for data-driven decisions. The popularity of counterfactual explanations resulted in a boom in the algorithms generating them. However, not every algorithm creates uniform explanations for the same instance. Even though in some contexts multiple possible explanations are beneficial, there are circumstances where diversity amongst counterfactual explanations results in a potential disagreement problem among stakeholders. Ethical issues arise when for example, malicious agents use this diversity to fairwash an unfair machine learning model by hiding sensitive features. As legislators worldwide tend to start including the right to explanations for data-driven, high-stakes decisions in their policies, these ethical issues should be understood and addressed. Our literature review on the disagreement problem in XAI reveals that this problem has never been empirically assessed for counterfactual explanations. Therefore, in this work, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis, on 40 datasets, using 12 explanation-generating methods, for two black-box models, yielding over 192.0000 explanations. Our study finds alarmingly high disagreement levels between the methods tested. A malicious user is able to both exclude and include desired features when multiple counterfactual explanations are available. This disagreement seems to be driven mainly by the dataset characteristics and the type of counterfactual algorithm. XAI centers on the transparency of algorithmic decision-making, but our analysis advocates for transparency about this self-proclaimed transparency

Black-box machine learning models are being used in more and more high-stakes domains, which creates a growing need for Explainable AI (XAI). Unfortunately, the use of XAI in machine learning introduces new privacy risks, which currently remain largely unnoticed. We introduce the explanation linkage attack, which can occur when deploying instance-based strategies to find counterfactual explanations. To counter such an attack, we propose k-anonymous counterfactual explanations and introduce pureness as a new metric to evaluate the validity of these k-anonymous counterfactual explanations. Our results show that making the explanations, rather than the whole dataset, k- anonymous, is beneficial for the quality of the explanations.