Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques are used to provide transparency to complex, opaque predictive models. However, these techniques are often designed for image and text data, and it is unclear how fit-for-purpose they are when applied to tabular data. As XAI techniques are rarely evaluated in settings with tabular data, the applicability of existing evaluation criteria and methods are also unclear and needs (re-)examination. For example, some works suggest that evaluation methods may unduly influence the evaluation results when using tabular data. This lack of clarity on evaluation procedures can lead to reduced transparency and ineffective use of XAI techniques in real world settings. In this study, we examine literature on XAI evaluation to derive guidelines on functionally-grounded assessment of local, post hoc XAI techniques. We identify 20 evaluation criteria and associated evaluation methods, and derive guidelines on when and how each criterion should be evaluated. We also identify key research gaps to be addressed by future work. Our study contributes to the body of knowledge on XAI evaluation through in-depth examination of functionally-grounded XAI evaluation protocols, and has laid the groundwork for future research on XAI evaluation.

Adversarial attacks are a potential threat to machine learning models, as they can cause the model to make incorrect predictions by introducing imperceptible perturbations to the input data. While extensively studied in unstructured data like images, their application to structured data like tabular data presents unique challenges due to the heterogeneity and intricate feature interdependencies of tabular data. Imperceptibility in tabular data involves preserving data integrity while potentially causing misclassification, underscoring the need for tailored imperceptibility criteria for tabular data. However, there is currently a lack of standardised metrics for assessing adversarial attacks specifically targeted at tabular data. To address this gap, we derive a set of properties for evaluating the imperceptibility of adversarial attacks on tabular data. These properties are defined to capture seven perspectives of perturbed data: proximity to original inputs, sparsity of alterations, deviation to datapoints in the original dataset, sensitivity of altering sensitive features, immutability of perturbation, feasibility of perturbed values and intricate feature interdepencies among tabular features. Furthermore, we conduct both quantitative empirical evaluation and case-based qualitative examples analysis for seven properties. The evaluation reveals a trade-off between attack success and imperceptibility, particularly concerning proximity, sensitivity, and deviation. Although no evaluated attacks can achieve optimal effectiveness and imperceptibility simultaneously, unbounded attacks prove to be more promised for tabular data in crafting imperceptible adversarial examples. The study also highlights the limitation of evaluated algorithms in controlling sparsity effectively. We suggest incorporating a sparsity metric in future attack design to regulate the number of perturbed features.

X-ray images are vital in medical diagnostics, but their effectiveness is limited without clinical context. Radiologists often find chest X-rays insufficient for diagnosing underlying diseases, necessitating comprehensive clinical features and data integration. We present a novel technique to enhance the clinical context through augmentation techniques with clinical tabular data, thereby improving its applicability and reliability in AI medical diagnostics. To address this, we introduce a pioneering approach to clinical data augmentation that employs large language models (LLMs) to generate patient contextual synthetic data. This methodology is crucial for training more robust deep learning models in healthcare. It preserves the integrity of real patient data while enriching the dataset with contextually relevant synthetic features, significantly enhancing model performance. DALL-M uses a three-phase feature generation process: (i) clinical context storage, (ii) expert query generation, and (iii) context-aware feature augmentation. DALL-M generates new, clinically relevant features by synthesizing chest X-ray images and reports. Applied to 799 cases using nine features from the MIMIC-IV dataset, it created an augmented set of 91 features. This is the first work to generate contextual values for existing and new features based on patients' X-ray reports, gender, and age and to produce new contextual knowledge during data augmentation. Empirical validation with machine learning models, including Decision Trees, Random Forests, XGBoost, and TabNET, showed significant performance improvements. Incorporating augmented features increased the F1 score by 16.5% and Precision and Recall by approximately 25%. DALL-M addresses a critical gap in clinical data augmentation, offering a robust framework for generating contextually enriched datasets.

In recent years, various machine and deep learning architectures have been successfully introduced to the field of predictive process analytics. Nevertheless, the inherent opacity of these algorithms poses a significant challenge for human decision-makers, hindering their ability to understand the reasoning behind the predictions. This growing concern has sparked the introduction of counterfactual explanations, designed as human-understandable what if scenarios, to provide clearer insights into the decision-making process behind undesirable predictions. The generation of counterfactual explanations, however, encounters specific challenges when dealing with the sequential nature of the (business) process cases typically used in predictive process analytics. Our paper tackles this challenge by introducing a data-driven approach, REVISEDplus, to generate more feasible and plausible counterfactual explanations. First, we restrict the counterfactual algorithm to generate counterfactuals that lie within a high-density region of the process data, ensuring that the proposed counterfactuals are realistic and feasible within the observed process data distribution. Additionally, we ensure plausibility by learning sequential patterns between the activities in the process cases, utilising Declare language templates. Finally, we evaluate the properties that define the validity of counterfactuals.

This study investigates the effects of including patients' clinical information on the performance of deep learning (DL) classifiers for disease location in chest X-ray images. Although current classifiers achieve high performance using chest X-ray images alone, our interviews with radiologists indicate that clinical data is highly informative and essential for interpreting images and making proper diagnoses. In this work, we propose a novel architecture consisting of two fusion methods that enable the model to simultaneously process patients' clinical data (structured data) and chest X-rays (image data). Since these data modalities are in different dimensional spaces, we propose a spatial arrangement strategy, spatialization, to facilitate the multimodal learning process in a Mask R-CNN model. We performed an extensive experimental evaluation using MIMIC-Eye, a dataset comprising modalities: MIMIC-CXR (chest X-ray images), MIMIC IV-ED (patients' clinical data), and REFLACX (annotations of disease locations in chest X-rays). Results show that incorporating patients' clinical data in a DL model together with the proposed fusion methods improves the disease localization in chest X-rays by 12\% in terms of Average Precision compared to a standard Mask R-CNN using only chest X-rays. Further ablation studies also emphasize the importance of multimodal DL architectures and the incorporation of patients' clinical data in disease localization. The architecture proposed in this work is publicly available to promote the scientific reproducibility of our study (https://github.com/ChihchengHsieh/multimodal-abnormalities-detection)

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.

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.