Background and aim: Considering the scope of the application of artificial intelligence beyond the field of computer science, one of the concerns of researchers is to provide quality explanations about the functioning of algorithms based on artificial intelligence and the data extracted from it. The purpose of the present study is to validate the Italian version of system causability scale (I-SCS) to measure the quality of explanations provided in a xAI. Method: For this purpose, the English version, initially provided in 2020 in coordination with the main developer, was utilized. The forward-backward translation method was applied to ensure accuracy. Finally, these nine steps were completed by calculating the content validity index/ratio and conducting cognitive interviews with representative end users. Results: The original version of the questionnaire consisted of 10 questions. However, based on the obtained indexes (CVR below 0.49), one question (Question 8) was entirely removed. After completing the aforementioned steps, the Italian version contained 9 questions. The representative sample of Italian end users fully comprehended the meaning and content of the questions in the Italian version. Conclusion: The Italian version obtained in this study can be used in future research studies as well as in the field by xAI developers. This tool can be used to measure the quality of explanations provided for an xAI system in Italian culture.

To achieve optimal human-system integration in the context of user-AI interaction it is important that users develop a valid representation of how AI works. In most of the everyday interaction with technical systems users construct mental models (i.e., an abstraction of the anticipated mechanisms a system uses to perform a given task). If no explicit explanations are provided by a system (e.g. by a self-explaining AI) or other sources (e.g. an instructor), the mental model is typically formed based on experiences, i.e. the observations of the user during the interaction. The congruence of this mental model and the actual systems functioning is vital, as it is used for assumptions, predictions and consequently for decisions regarding system use. A key question for human-centered AI research is therefore how to validly survey users' mental models. The objective of the present research is to identify suitable elicitation methods for mental model analysis. We evaluated whether mental models are suitable as an empirical research method. Additionally, methods of cognitive tutoring are integrated. We propose an exemplary method to evaluate explainable AI approaches in a human-centered way.

Recent success in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) allow problem solving automatically without any human intervention. Autonomous approaches can be very convenient. However, in certain domains, e.g., in the medical domain, it is necessary to enable a domain expert to understand, why an algorithm came up with a certain result. Consequently, the field of Explainable AI (xAI) rapidly gained interest worldwide in various domains, particularly in medicine. Explainable AI studies transparency and traceability of opaque AI/ML and there are already a huge variety of methods. For example with layer-wise relevance propagation relevant parts of inputs to, and representations in, a neural network which caused a result, can be highlighted. This is a first important step to ensure that end users, e.g., medical professionals, assume responsibility for decision making with AI/ML and of interest to professionals and regulators. Interactive ML adds the component of human expertise to AI/ML processes by enabling them to re-enact and retrace AI/ML results, e.g. let them check it for plausibility. This requires new human-AI interfaces for explainable AI. In order to build effective and efficient interactive human-AI interfaces we have to deal with the question of how to evaluate the quality of explanations given by an explainable AI system. In this paper we introduce our System Causability Scale (SCS) to measure the quality of explanations. It is based on our notion of Causability (Holzinger et al., 2019) combined with concepts adapted from a widely accepted usability scale.