The state-of-the-art feature attribution methods often neglect the influence of unobservable confounders, posing a risk of misinterpretation, especially when it is crucial for the interpretation to remain faithful to the data. To counteract this, we propose a new approach, data-faithful feature attribution, which trains a confounder-free model using instrumental variables.

With the improving semantic understanding capability of Large Language Models (LLMs), they exhibit a greater awareness and alignment with human values, but this comes at the cost of transparency. Although promising results are achieved via experimental analysis, an in-depth understanding of the LLM's internal workings is unavoidable to comprehend the reasoning behind the re-ranking, which provides end users with an explanation that enables them to make an informed decision. Moreover, in newly developed systems with limited user engagement and insufficient ranking data, accurately re-ranking content remains a significant challenge. While various training methods affect the training of LLMs and generate inference, our analysis has found that some training methods exhibit better explainability than others, implying that an accurate semantic understanding has not been learned through all training methods; instead, abstract knowledge has been gained to optimize evaluation, which raises questions about the true reliability of LLMs. Therefore, in this work, we analyze how different training methods affect the semantic understanding of the re-ranking task in LLMs and investigate whether these models can generate more informed textual reasoning to overcome the challenges of transparency or LLMs and limited training data. To analyze the LLMs for re-ranking tasks, we utilize a relatively small ranking dataset from the environment and the Earth science domain to re-rank retrieved content. Furthermore, we also analyze the explainable information to see if the re-ranking can be reasoned using explainability.

A B S T R A C T Deep neural networks have shown potential in analyzing digitized hand-drawn signals for early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. However, the lack of clear inter-pretability in existing diagnostic methods presents a challenge to clinical trust. In this paper, we propose PointExplainer, an explainable diagnostic strategy to identify hand-drawn regions that drive model diagnosis. Specifically, PointExplainer assigns discrete attribution values to hand-drawn segments, explicitly quantifying their relative contributions to the model's decision. Its key components include: (i) a diagnosis module, which encodes hand-drawn signals into 3D point clouds to represent hand-drawn trajectories, and (ii) an explanation module, which trains an interpretable surrogate model to approximate the local behavior of the black-box diagnostic model. We also introduce consistency measures to further address the issue of faithfulness in explanations. Extensive experiments on two benchmark datasets and a newly constructed dataset show that PointExplainer can provide intuitive explanations with no diagnostic performance degradation. Introduction Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the most prevalent neurological disorders worldwide, leading to a decrease in functional, cognitive, and behavioral abilities [1, 10]. Despite the unclear etiology and lack of a cure, evidence indicates that early diagnosis, coupled with subsequent neuroprotective interventions, can significantly delay its progression [53]. Hand drawing is a common but complex human activity, requiring fine motor control and involving a sophisticated interplay of cognitive, sensory, and perceptual-motor functions [14]. Dysgraphia is recognized as a crucial biomarker in the early stages of PD [39]. Digitized hand-drawn analysis [6, 26], as a noninvasive and easily accessible biometric technology, has emerged as a promising computer-aided approach for diagnosing PD [23, 30, 22, 72, 47, 21].

We fine-tuned and compared several encoder-based Transformer large language models (LLM) to predict differential item functioning (DIF) from the item text. We then applied explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods to these models to identify specific words associated with DIF. The data included 42,180 items designed for English language arts and mathematics summative state assessments among students in grades 3 to 11. Prediction $R^2$ ranged from .04 to .32 among eight focal and reference group pairs. Our findings suggest that many words associated with DIF reflect minor sub-domains included in the test blueprint by design, rather than construct-irrelevant item content that should be removed from assessments. This may explain why qualitative reviews of DIF items often yield confusing or inconclusive results. Our approach can be used to screen words associated with DIF during the item-writing process for immediate revision, or help review traditional DIF analysis results by highlighting key words in the text. Extensions of this research can enhance the fairness of assessment programs, especially those that lack resources to build high-quality items, and among smaller subpopulations where we do not have sufficient sample sizes for traditional DIF analyses.

The increasing complexity of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models has led to their widespread adoption in numerous real-world applications. However, as these models become more powerful, they also become less interpretable. In particular, deep neural networks (DNNs), which have achieved state-of-the-art performance in tasks such as image recognition, natural language processing, and autonomous driving, are often viewed as "black box" models due to their complexity and lack of transparency. Interpretability is essential, particularly in high-stakes fields where the consequences of incorrect or non-explainable decisions can be profound. In domains such as healthcare, finance, and law, it is not only crucial that AI systems make accurate predictions but also that these predictions can be understood and justified by human stakeholders. For example, in healthcare, understanding why a model predicts a certain diagnosis can be as important as the prediction itself, influencing clinical decisions and patient outcomes.

Procedurally generated levels created by machine learning models can be unsolvable without further editing. Various methods have been developed to automatically repair these levels by enforcing hard constraints during the post-processing step. However, as levels increase in size, these constraint-based repairs become increasingly slow. This paper proposes using explainability methods to identify specific regions of a level that contribute to its unsolvability. By assigning higher weights to these regions, constraint-based solvers can prioritize these problematic areas, enabling more efficient repairs. Our results, tested across three games, demonstrate that this approach can help to repair procedurally generated levels faster.

In the supervised classification setting, during inference, deep networks typically make multiple predictions. For a pair of such predictions (that are in the top-k predictions), two distinct possibilities might occur. On the one hand, each of the two predictions might be primarily driven by two distinct sets of entities in the input. On the other hand, it is possible that there is a single entity or set of entities that is driving the prediction for both the classes in question. This latter case, in effect, corresponds to the network making two separate guesses about the identity of a single entity type. Clearly, both the guesses cannot be true, i.e. both the labels cannot be present in the input. Current techniques in interpretability research do not readily disambiguate these two cases, since they typically consider input attributions for one class label at a time. Here, we present a framework and method to do so, leveraging modern segmentation and input attribution techniques. Notably, our framework also provides a simple counterfactual "proof" of each case, which can be verified for the input on the model (i.e. without running the method again). We demonstrate that the method performs well for a number of samples from the ImageNet validation set and on multiple models.

Research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasing, aiming to make deep learning models more transparent. Most XAI methods focus on justifying the decisions made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in security-relevant applications. However, relatively little attention has been given to using these methods to improve the performance and robustness of deep learning algorithms. Additionally, much of the existing XAI work primarily addresses classification problems. In this study, we investigate the potential of feature attribution methods to filter out uninformative features in input data for regression problems, thereby improving the accuracy and stability of predictions. We introduce a feature selection pipeline that combines Integrated Gradients with k-means clustering to select an optimal set of variables from the initial data space. To validate the effectiveness of this approach, we apply it to a real-world industrial problem - blade vibration analysis in the development process of turbo machinery.

Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) is a frequently employed technique to solve scheduling problems. Although DRL agents ace at delivering viable results in short computing times, their reasoning remains opaque. We conduct a case study where we systematically apply two explainable AI (xAI) frameworks, namely SHAP (DeepSHAP) and Captum (Input x Gradient), to describe the reasoning behind scheduling decisions of a specialized DRL agent in a flow production. We find that methods in the xAI literature lack falsifiability and consistent terminology, do not adequately consider domain-knowledge, the target audience or real-world scenarios, and typically provide simple input-output explanations rather than causal interpretations. To resolve this issue, we introduce a hypotheses-based workflow. This approach enables us to inspect whether explanations align with domain knowledge and match the reward hypotheses of the agent. We furthermore tackle the challenge of communicating these insights to third parties by tailoring hypotheses to the target audience, which can serve as interpretations of the agent's behavior after verification. Our proposed workflow emphasizes the repeated verification of explanations and may be applicable to various DRL-based scheduling use cases.