Therefore, developing grid analysis algorithms is important for supporting reliable operations.

In recent years, concept-based approaches have emerged as some of the most promising explainability methods to help us interpret the decisions of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs).

A multitude of explainability methods has been described to try to help users better understand how modern AI systems make decisions. However, most performance metrics developed to evaluate these methods have remained largely theoretical -- without much consideration for the human end-user. In particular, it is not yet clear (1) how useful current explainability methods are in real-world scenarios; and (2) whether current performance metrics accurately reflect the usefulness of explanation methods for the end user. To fill this gap, we conducted psychophysics experiments at scale ($n=1,150$) to evaluate the usefulness of representative attribution methods in three real-world scenarios. Our results demonstrate that the degree to which individual attribution methods help human participants better understand an AI system varies widely across these scenarios. This suggests the need to move beyond quantitative improvements of current attribution methods, towards the development of complementary approaches that provide qualitatively different sources of information to human end-users.

Post-hoc explainability methods are a subset of Machine Learning (ML) that aim to provide a reason for why a model behaves in a certain way. In this paper, we show a new black-box model-agnostic adversarial attack for post-hoc explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), particularly in the image domain. The goal of the attack is to modify the original explanations while being undetected by the human eye and maintain the same predicted class. In contrast to previous methods, we do not require any access to the model or its weights, but only to the model's computed predictions and explanations. Additionally, the attack is accomplished in a single step while significantly changing the provided explanations, as demonstrated by empirical evaluation. The low requirements of our method expose a critical vulnerability in current explainability methods, raising concerns about their reliability in safety-critical applications. We systematically generate attacks based on the explanations generated by post-hoc explainability methods (saliency maps, integrated gradients, and DeepLIFT SHAP) for pretrained ResNet-18 and ViT-B16 on ImageNet. The results show that our attacks could lead to dramatically different explanations without changing the predictive probabilities. We validate the effectiveness of our attack, compute the induced change based on the explanation with mean absolute difference, and verify the closeness of the original image and the corrupted one with the Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM).

The usage of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods has become essential in practical applications, given the increasing deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models and the legislative requirements put forward in the latest years. A fundamental but often underestimated aspect of the explanations is their robustness, a key property that should be satisfied in order to trust the explanations. In this study, we provide some preliminary insights on evaluating the reliability of explanations in the specific case of unbalanced datasets, which are very frequent in high-risk use-cases, but at the same time considerably challenging for both AI models and XAI methods. We propose a simple evaluation focused on the minority class (i.e. the less frequent one) that leverages on-manifold generation of neighbours, explanation aggregation and a metric to test explanation consistency. We present a use-case based on a tabular dataset with numerical features focusing on the occurrence of frost events.

In recent years, concept-based approaches have emerged as some of the most promising explainability methods to help us interpret the decisions of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs).

The first approach takes humans into consideration only in so far as it evaluates the alignment of an explanation with a human annotation.

Explainable artificial intelligence is increasingly employed to understand the decision-making process of deep learning models and create trustworthiness in their adoption. However, the explainability of Monocular Depth Estimation (MDE) remains largely unexplored despite its wide deployment in real-world applications. In this work, we study how to analyze MDE networks to map the input image to the predicted depth map. More in detail, we investigate well-established feature attribution methods, Saliency Maps, Integrated Gradients, and Attention Rollout on different computationally complex models for MDE: METER, a lightweight network, and PixelFormer, a deep network. We assess the quality of the generated visual explanations by selectively perturbing the most relevant and irrelevant pixels, as identified by the explainability methods, and analyzing the impact of these perturbations on the model's output. Moreover, since existing evaluation metrics can have some limitations in measuring the validity of visual explanations for MDE, we additionally introduce the Attribution Fidelity. This metric evaluates the reliability of the feature attribution by assessing their consistency with the predicted depth map. Experimental results demonstrate that Saliency Maps and Integrated Gradients have good performance in highlighting the most important input features for MDE lightweight and deep models, respectively. Furthermore, we show that Attribution Fidelity effectively identifies whether an explainability method fails to produce reliable visual maps, even in scenarios where conventional metrics might suggest satisfactory results.