Explainable AI (XAI) presents useful tools to facilitate transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning systems. However, current evaluations of system explainability often rely heavily on subjective user surveys, which may not adequately capture the effectiveness of explanations. This paper critiques the overreliance on user satisfaction metrics and explores whether these can differentiate between meaningful (actionable) and vacuous (placebic) explanations. In experiments involving optimal Social Security filing age selection tasks, participants used one of three protocols: no explanations, placebic explanations, and actionable explanations. Participants who received actionable explanations significantly outperformed the other groups in objective measures of their mental model, but users rated placebic and actionable explanations as equally satisfying. This suggests that subjective surveys alone fail to capture whether explanations truly support users in building useful domain understanding. We propose that future evaluations of agent explanation capabilities should integrate objective task performance metrics alongside subjective assessments to more accurately measure explanation quality.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to create transparency in modern AI models by offering explanations of the models to human users. There are many ways in which researchers have attempted to evaluate the quality of these XAI models, such as user studies or proposed objective metrics like "fidelity". However, these current XAI evaluation techniques are ad hoc at best and not generalizable. Thus, most studies done within this field conduct simple user surveys to analyze the difference between no explanations and those generated by their proposed solution. We do not find this to provide adequate evidence that the explanations generated are of good quality since we believe any kind of explanation will be "better" in most metrics when compared to none at all. Thus, our study looks to highlight this pitfall: most explanations, regardless of quality or correctness, will increase user satisfaction. We also propose that emphasis should be placed on actionable explanations. We demonstrate the validity of both of our claims using an agent assistant to teach chess concepts to users. The results of this chapter will act as a call to action in the field of XAI for more comprehensive evaluation techniques for future research in order to prove explanation quality beyond user satisfaction. Additionally, we present an analysis of the scenarios in which placebic or actionable explanations would be most useful.

Fine-tuning LLMs on narrowly harmful datasets can lead to behavior that is broadly misaligned with respect to human values. To understand when and how this emergent misalignment occurs, we develop a comprehensive framework for detecting and characterizing rapid transitions during fine-tuning using both distributional change detection methods as well as order parameters that are formulated in plain English and evaluated by an LLM judge. Using an objective statistical dissimilarity measure, we quantify how the phase transition that occurs during fine-tuning affects multiple aspects of the model. In particular, we assess what percentage of the total distributional change in model outputs is captured by different aspects, such as alignment or verbosity, providing a decomposition of the overall transition. We also find that the actual behavioral transition occurs later in training than indicated by the peak in the gradient norm alone. Our framework enables the automated discovery and quantification of language-based order parameters, which we demonstrate on examples ranging from knowledge questions to politics and ethics.

Introduction Making sense of theory choice in normal and across extraordinary science is central to philosophy of science. The emergence of machine learning models has the potential to act as a wrench in the gears of current debates. In this paper, I will attempt to reconstruct the main movements that lead to and came out of Putnam's critical and explanatory tendency distinction, argue for the biconditional necessity of the tendencies, and conceptualize that wrench through a machine learning interpretation of my claim. Some preliminary definitions and statements of assumptions are in order. Kuhn's picture of normal versus extraordinary science is presented in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". In a short caricature of the distinction, normal science takes place within paradigms and extraordinary science takes place across paradigms.

As language technologies become widespread, it is important to understand how variations in language affect reader perceptions -- formalized as the isolated causal effect of some focal language-encoded intervention on an external outcome. A core challenge of estimating isolated effects is the need to approximate all non-focal language outside of the intervention. In this paper, we introduce a formal estimation framework for isolated causal effects and explore how different approximations of non-focal language impact effect estimates. Drawing on the principle of omitted variable bias, we present metrics for evaluating the quality of isolated effect estimation and non-focal language approximation along the axes of fidelity and overlap. In experiments on semi-synthetic and real-world data, we validate the ability of our framework to recover ground truth isolated effects, and we demonstrate the utility of our proposed metrics as measures of quality for both isolated effect estimates and non-focal language approximations.

Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.

Computer-based scene understanding has influenced fields ranging from urban planning to autonomous vehicle performance, yet little is known about how well these technologies work across social differences. We investigate the biases of deep convolutional neural networks (dCNNs) in scene classification, using nearly one million images from global and US sources, including user-submitted home photographs and Airbnb listings. We applied statistical models to quantify the impact of socioeconomic indicators such as family income, Human Development Index (HDI), and demographic factors from public data sources (CIA and US Census) on dCNN performance. Our analyses revealed significant socioeconomic bias, where pretrained dCNNs demonstrated lower classification accuracy, lower classification confidence, and a higher tendency to assign labels that could be offensive when applied to homes (e.g., "ruin", "slum"), especially in images from homes with lower socioeconomic status (SES). This trend is consistent across two datasets of international images and within the diverse economic and racial landscapes of the United States. This research contributes to understanding biases in computer vision, emphasizing the need for more inclusive and representative training datasets. By mitigating the bias in the computer vision pipelines, we can ensure fairer and more equitable outcomes for applied computer vision, including home valuation and smart home security systems. There is urgency in addressing these biases, which can significantly impact critical decisions in urban development and resource allocation. Our findings also motivate the development of AI systems that better understand and serve diverse communities, moving towards technology that equitably benefits all sectors of society.

In high-dimensional time-series analysis, it is essential to have a set of key factors (namely, the style factors) that explain the change of the observed variable. For example, volatility modeling in finance relies on a set of risk factors, and climate change studies in climatology rely on a set of causal factors. The ideal low-dimensional style factors should balance significance (with high explanatory power) and stability (consistent, no significant fluctuations). However, previous supervised and unsupervised feature extraction methods can hardly address the tradeoff. In this paper, we propose Style Miner, a reinforcement learning method to generate style factors. We first formulate the problem as a Constrained Markov Decision Process with explanatory power as the return and stability as the constraint. Then, we design fine-grained immediate rewards and costs and use a Lagrangian heuristic to balance them adaptively. Experiments on real-world financial data sets show that Style Miner outperforms existing learning-based methods by a large margin and achieves a relatively 10% gain in R-squared explanatory power compared to the industry-renowned factors proposed by human experts.

The project to define what the late Marvin Minsky refers to as a suitcase word -- words that have so much packed inside them, making it difficult for us to unpack and understand this embedded intricacy in its entirety -- has not been without its fair share of challenges. The term does not have a single agreed-upon definition, with the dimensions of description shifting from optimization or efficient search space exploration to rationality and the ability to adapt to uncertain environments, depending on which expert you ask. The confusion becomes more salient when one hears news of machines achieving super-human performance in activities like Chess or Go -- traditional stand-ins for high intellectual aptitude -- but fail miserably in tasks like grabbing objects or moving across uneven terrain, which most of us do without thinking. But, several themes do emerge when we try to corner the concept. Our ability to explain why we do what we do makes a fair number of appearances in the list of definitions proposed by multiple disciplines.

On good days, the world seems like a well-run railway: things happen according to principles, laws, rules and generalisations that we humans understand and can apply to particulars. We forgive the occasional late trains as exceptions that prove the rule. But other times we experience the world as a multi-car pile-up on a highway. The same laws of physics and of governments apply, but there are so many moving parts that we can't predict the next pile-up and we can't explain the details of this one – 'details' that can let one car escape with a bent fender while another erupts in a fireball. What's true of a car pile-up is also true of an uneventful autumn walk down a path arrayed with just exactly those leaves and no others.