This paper proposes a novel multimodal DL architecture incorporating medical images and eye-tracking data for abnormality detection in chest x-rays. Our results show that applying eye gaze data directly into DL architectures does not show superior predictive performance in abnormality detection chest X-rays. These results support other works in the literature and suggest that human-generated data, such as eye gaze, needs a more thorough investigation before being applied to DL architectures.

In this paper, we address the "black-box" problem in predictive process analytics by building interpretable models that are capable to inform both what and why is a prediction. Predictive process analytics is a newly emerged discipline dedicated to providing business process intelligence in modern organisations. It uses event logs, which capture process execution traces in the form of multi-dimensional sequence data, as the key input to train predictive models. These predictive models, often built upon deep learning techniques, can be used to make predictions about the future states of business process execution. We apply attention mechanism to achieve model interpretability. We propose i) two types of attentions: event attention to capture the impact of specific process events on a prediction, and attribute attention to reveal which attribute(s) of an event influenced the prediction; and ii) two attention mechanisms: shared attention mechanism and specialised attention mechanism to reflect different design decisions in when to construct attribute attention on individual input features (specialised) or using the concatenated feature tensor of all input feature vectors (shared). These lead to two distinct attention-based models, and both are interpretable models that incorporate interpretability directly into the structure of a process predictive model. We conduct experimental evaluation of the proposed models using real-life dataset, and comparative analysis between the models for accuracy and interpretability, and draw insights from the evaluation and analysis results.

Predictive process analytics often apply machine learning to predict the future states of a running business process. However, the internal mechanisms of many existing predictive algorithms are opaque and a human decision-maker is unable to understand \emph{why} a certain activity was predicted. Recently, counterfactuals have been proposed in the literature to derive human-understandable explanations from predictive models. Current counterfactual approaches consist of finding the minimum feature change that can make a certain prediction flip its outcome. Although many algorithms have been proposed, their application to the sequence and multi-dimensional data like event logs has not been explored in the literature. In this paper, we explore the use of a recent, popular model-agnostic counterfactual algorithm, DiCE, in the context of predictive process analytics. The analysis reveals that the algorithm is limited when being applied to derive explanations of process predictions, due to (1) process domain knowledge not being taken into account, (2) long traces that often tend to be less understandable, and (3) difficulties in optimising the counterfactual search with categorical variables. We design an extension of DiCE that can generate counterfactuals for process predictions, and propose an approach that supports deriving milestone-aware counterfactuals at different stages of a trace to promote interpretability. We apply our approach to BPIC2012 event log and the analysis results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods are used in order to improve the interpretability of these complex "black box" models, thereby increasing transparency and enabling informed decision-making (Guidotti et al, 2018). Despite this, methods to assess the quality of explanations generated by such explainable methods are so far under-explored. In particular, functionallygrounded evaluation methods, which measure the inherent ability of explainable methods in a given situation, are often specific to a particular type of dataset or explainable method. A key measure of functionally-grounded explanation fitness is explanation fidelity, which assesses the correctness and completeness of the explanation with respect to the underlying black box predictive model (Zhou et al, 2021). Evaluations of fidelity in literature can generally be classified as one of the following: external fidelity evaluation, which assesses how well the prediction of the underlying model and the explanation agree, and internal fidelity, which assesses how well the explanation matches the decision-making processes of the underlying model (Messalas et al, 2019). While methods to evaluate external fidelity are relatively common in literature (Guidotti et al, 2019; Lakkaraju et al, 2016; Ming et al, 2019; Shankaranarayana and Runje, 2019), evaluation methods to evaluate internal fidelity using black box models are generally limited to text and image data, rather than tabular (Du et al, 2019; Fong and Vedaldi, 2017; Nguyen, 2018; Samek et al, 2017). In this paper, weproposeanovelevaluation method based onathree phase approach:(1) the creation of a fully transparent, inherently interpretable white box model, and evaluation of explanations against this model; (2) the usage of the white box as a proxy to refine and improve the evaluation of explanations generated by a black box model; and (3) test the fidelity of explanations for a black box model using the refined method from the second phase. The main contributions of this work are as follows: 1.

Order effects occur when judgments about a hypothesis's probability given a sequence of information do not equal the probability of the same hypothesis when the information is reversed. Different experiments have been performed in the literature that supports evidence of order effects. We proposed a Bayesian update model for order effects where each question can be thought of as a mini-experiment where the respondents reflect on their beliefs. We showed that order effects appear, and they have a simple cognitive explanation: the respondent's prior belief that two questions are correlated. The proposed Bayesian model allows us to make several predictions: (1) we found certain conditions on the priors that limit the existence of order effects; (2) we show that, for our model, the QQ equality is not necessarily satisfied (due to symmetry assumptions); and (3) the proposed Bayesian model has the advantage of possessing fewer parameters than its quantum counterpart.

There has been a growing interest in model-agnostic methods that can make deep learning models more transparent and explainable to a user. Some researchers recently argued that for a machine to achieve a certain degree of human-level explainability, this machine needs to provide human causally understandable explanations, also known as causability. A specific class of algorithms that have the potential to provide causability are counterfactuals. This paper presents an in-depth systematic review of the diverse existing body of literature on counterfactuals and causability for explainable artificial intelligence. We performed an LDA topic modelling analysis under a PRISMA framework to find the most relevant literature articles. This analysis resulted in a novel taxonomy that considers the grounding theories of the surveyed algorithms, together with their underlying properties and applications in real-world data. This research suggests that current model-agnostic counterfactual algorithms for explainable AI are not grounded on a causal theoretical formalism and, consequently, cannot promote causability to a human decision-maker. Our findings suggest that the explanations derived from major algorithms in the literature provide spurious correlations rather than cause/effects relationships, leading to sub-optimal, erroneous or even biased explanations. This paper also advances the literature with new directions and challenges on promoting causability in model-agnostic approaches for explainable artificial intelligence.

Predictive process analytics focuses on predicting the future states of running instances of a business process. While advanced machine learning techniques have been used to increase accuracy of predictions, the resulting predictive models lack transparency. Current explainable machine learning methods, such as LIME and SHAP, can be used to interpret black box models. However, it is unclear how fit for purpose these methods are in explaining process predictive models. In this paper, we draw on evaluation measures used in the field of explainable AI and propose functionally-grounded evaluation metrics for assessing explainable methods in predictive process analytics. We apply the proposed metrics to evaluate the performance of LIME and SHAP in interpreting process predictive models built on XGBoost, which has been shown to be relatively accurate in process predictions. We conduct the evaluation using three open source, real-world event logs and analyse the evaluation results to derive insights. The research contributes to understanding the trustworthiness of explainable methods for predictive process analytics as a fundamental and key step towards human user-oriented evaluation.

The use of sophisticated machine learning models for critical decision making is faced with a challenge that these models are often applied as a "black-box". This has led to an increased interest in interpretable machine learning, where post hoc interpretation presents a useful mechanism for generating interpretations of complex learning models. In this paper, we propose a novel approach underpinned by an extended framework of Bayesian networks for generating post hoc interpretations of a black-box predictive model. The framework supports extracting a Bayesian network as an approximation of the black-box model for a specific prediction. Compared to the existing post hoc interpretation methods, the contribution of our approach is three-fold. Firstly, the extracted Bayesian network, as a probabilistic graphical model, can provide interpretations about not only what input features but also why these features contributed to a prediction. Secondly, for complex decision problems with many features, a Markov blanket can be generated from the extracted Bayesian network to provide interpretations with a focused view on those input features that directly contributed to a prediction. Thirdly, the extracted Bayesian network enables the identification of four different rules which can inform the decision-maker about the confidence level in a prediction, thus helping the decision-maker assess the reliability of predictions learned by a black-box model. We implemented the proposed approach, applied it in the context of two well-known public datasets and analysed the results, which are made available in an open-source repository.

This paper provides the foundations of a unified cognitive decision-making framework (QulBIT) which is derived from quantum theory. The main advantage of this framework is that it can cater for paradoxical and irrational human decision making. Although quantum approaches for cognition have demonstrated advantages over classical probabilistic approaches and bounded rationality models, they still lack explanatory power. To address this, we introduce a novel explanatory analysis of the decision-maker's belief space. This is achieved by exploiting quantum interference effects as a way of both quantifying and explaining the decision-maker's uncertainty. We detail the main modules of the unified framework, the explanatory analysis method, and illustrate their application in situations violating the Sure Thing Principle.

We propose an alternative and unifying framework for decision-making that, by using quantum mechanics, provides more generalised cognitive and decision models with the ability to represent more information than classical models. This framework can accommodate and predict several cognitive biases reported in Lieder & Griffiths without heavy reliance on heuristics nor on assumptions of the computational resources of the mind. Expected utility theory and classical probabilities tell us what people should do if employing traditionally rational thought, but do not tell us what people do in reality (Machina, 2009). Under this principle, L&G propose an architecture for cognition that can serve as an intermediary layer between Neuroscience and Computation. Whilst instances where large expenditures of cognitive resources occur are theoretically alluded to, the model primarily assumes a preference for fast, heuristic-based processing.