The ability to interpret Machine Learning (ML) models is becoming increasingly essential. However, despite significant progress in the field, there remains a lack of rigorous characterization regarding the innate interpretability of different models. In an attempt to bridge this gap, recent work has demonstrated that it is possible to formally assess interpretability by studying the computational complexity of explaining the decisions of various models. In this setting, if explanations for a particular model can be obtained efficiently, the model is considered interpretable (since it can be explained ``easily''). However, if generating explanations over an ML model is computationally intractable, it is considered uninterpretable. Prior research identified two key factors that influence the complexity of interpreting an ML model: (i) the type of the model (e.g., neural networks, decision trees, etc.); and (ii) the form of explanation (e.g., contrastive explanations, Shapley values, etc.). In this work, we claim that a third, important factor must also be considered for this analysis -- the underlying distribution over which the explanation is obtained. Considering the underlying distribution is key in avoiding explanations that are socially misaligned, i.e., convey information that is biased and unhelpful to users. We demonstrate the significant influence of the underlying distribution on the resulting overall interpretation complexity, in two settings: (i) prediction models paired with an external out-of-distribution (OOD) detector; and (ii) prediction models designed to inherently generate socially aligned explanations. Our findings prove that the expressiveness of the distribution can significantly influence the overall complexity of interpretation, and identify essential prerequisites that a model must possess to generate socially aligned explanations.

Non-technical end-users are silent and invisible users of the state-of-the-art explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) technologies. Their demands and requirements for AI explainability are not incorporated into the design and evaluation of XAI techniques, which are developed to explain the rationales of AI decisions to end-users and assist their critical decisions. This makes XAI techniques ineffective or even harmful in high-stakes applications, such as healthcare, criminal justice, finance, and autonomous driving systems. To systematically understand end-users' requirements to support the technical development of XAI, we conducted the EUCA user study with 32 layperson participants in four AI-assisted critical tasks. The study identified comprehensive user requirements for feature-, example-, and rule-based XAI techniques (manifested by the end-user-friendly explanation forms) and XAI evaluation objectives (manifested by the explanation goals), which were shown to be helpful to directly inspire the proposal of new XAI algorithms and evaluation metrics. The EUCA study findings, the identified explanation forms and goals for technical specification, and the EUCA study dataset support the design and evaluation of end-user-centered XAI techniques for accessible, safe, and accountable AI.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is essential for enabling clinical users to get informed decision support from AI and comply with evidence-based medical practice. Applying XAI in clinical settings requires proper evaluation criteria to ensure the explanation technique is both technically sound and clinically useful, but specific support is lacking to achieve this goal. To bridge the research gap, we propose the Clinical XAI Guidelines that consist of five criteria a clinical XAI needs to be optimized for. The guidelines recommend choosing an explanation form based on Guideline 1 (G1) Understandability and G2 Clinical relevance. For the chosen explanation form, its specific XAI technique should be optimized for G3 Truthfulness, G4 Informative plausibility, and G5 Computational efficiency. Following the guidelines, we conducted a systematic evaluation on a novel problem of multi-modal medical image explanation with two clinical tasks, and proposed new evaluation metrics accordingly. Sixteen commonly-used heatmap XAI techniques were evaluated and found to be insufficient for clinical use due to their failure in G3 and G4. Our evaluation demonstrated the use of Clinical XAI Guidelines to support the design and evaluation of clinically viable XAI.