The lack of interpretability is a major barrier that limits the practical usage of AI models. Several eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques (e.g., SHAP, LIME) have been employed to interpret these models' performance. However, users often face challenges when leveraging these techniques in real-world scenarios and thus submit questions in technical Q&A forums like Stack Overflow (SO) to resolve these challenges. We conducted an exploratory study to expose these challenges, their severity, and features that can make XAI techniques more accessible and easier to use. Our contributions to this study are fourfold. First, we manually analyzed 663 SO questions that discussed challenges related to XAI techniques. Our careful investigation produced a catalog of seven challenges (e.g., disagreement issues). We then analyzed their prevalence and found that model integration and disagreement issues emerged as the most prevalent challenges. Second, we attempt to estimate the severity of each XAI challenge by determining the correlation between challenge types and answer metadata (e.g., the presence of accepted answers). Our analysis suggests that model integration issues is the most severe challenge. Third, we attempt to perceive the severity of these challenges based on practitioners' ability to use XAI techniques effectively in their work. Practitioners' responses suggest that disagreement issues most severely affect the use of XAI techniques. Fourth, we seek agreement from practitioners on improvements or features that could make XAI techniques more accessible and user-friendly. The majority of them suggest consistency in explanations and simplified integration. Our study findings might (a) help to enhance the accessibility and usability of XAI and (b) act as the initial benchmark that can inspire future research.

Raman spectroscopy is becoming more common for medical diagnostics with deep learning models being increasingly used to leverage its full potential. However, the opaque nature of such models and the sensitivity of medical diagnosis together with regulatory requirements necessitate the need for explainable AI tools. We introduce SpecReX, specifically adapted to explaining Raman spectra. SpecReX uses the theory of actual causality to rank causal responsibility in a spectrum, quantified by iteratively refining mutated versions of the spectrum and testing if it retains the original classification. The explanations provided by SpecReX take the form of a responsibility map, highlighting spectral regions most responsible for the model to make a correct classification. To assess the validity of SpecReX, we create increasingly complex simulated spectra, in which a "ground truth" signal is seeded, to train a classifier. We then obtain SpecReX explanations and compare the results with another explainability tool. By using simulated spectra we establish that SpecReX localizes to the known differences between classes, under a number of conditions. This provides a foundation on which we can find the spectral features which differentiate disease classes. This is an important first step in proving the validity of SpecReX.

As AI becomes fundamental in sectors like healthcare, explainable AI (XAI) tools are essential for trust and transparency. However, traditional user studies used to evaluate these tools are often costly, time consuming, and difficult to scale. In this paper, we explore the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to replicate human participants to help streamline XAI evaluation. We reproduce a user study comparing counterfactual and causal explanations, replicating human participants with seven LLMs under various settings. Our results show that (i) LLMs can replicate most conclusions from the original study, (ii) different LLMs yield varying levels of alignment in the results, and (iii) experimental factors such as LLM memory and output variability affect alignment with human responses. These initial findings suggest that LLMs could provide a scalable and cost-effective way to simplify qualitative XAI evaluation.

As computational systems supported by artificial intelligence (AI) techniques continue to play an increasingly pivotal role in making high-stakes recommendations and decisions across various domains, the demand for explainable AI (XAI) has grown significantly, extending its impact into cognitive learning research. Providing explanations for novel concepts is recognised as a fundamental aid in the learning process, particularly when addressing challenges stemming from knowledge deficiencies and skill application. Addressing these difficulties involves timely explanations and guidance throughout the learning process, prompting the interest of AI experts in developing explainer models. In this paper, we introduce an intelligent system (CL-XAI) for Cognitive Learning which is supported by XAI, focusing on two key research objectives: exploring how human learners comprehend the internal mechanisms of AI models using XAI tools and evaluating the effectiveness of such tools through human feedback. The use of CL-XAI is illustrated with a game-inspired virtual use case where learners tackle combinatorial problems to enhance problem-solving skills and deepen their understanding of complex concepts, highlighting the potential for transformative advances in cognitive learning and co-learning.

With the rising concern on model interpretability, the application of eXplainable AI (XAI) tools on deepfake detection models has been a topic of interest recently. In image classification tasks, XAI tools highlight pixels influencing the decision given by a model. This helps in troubleshooting the model and determining areas that may require further tuning of parameters. With a wide range of tools available in the market, choosing the right tool for a model becomes necessary as each one may highlight different sets of pixels for a given image. There is a need to evaluate different tools and decide the best performing ones among them. Generic XAI evaluation methods like insertion or removal of salient pixels/segments are applicable for general image classification tasks but may produce less meaningful results when applied on deepfake detection models due to their functionality. In this paper, we perform experiments to show that generic removal/insertion XAI evaluation methods are not suitable for deepfake detection models. We also propose and implement an XAI evaluation approach specifically suited for deepfake detection models.

Existing tools for explaining the output of image classifiers can be divided into white-box, which rely on access to the model internals, and black-box, agnostic to the model. As the usage of AI in the medical domain grows, so too does the usage of explainability tools. Existing work on medical image explanations focuses on white-box tools, such as gradcam. However, there are clear advantages to switching to a black-box tool, including the ability to use it with any classifier and the wide selection of black-box tools available. On standard images, black-box tools are as precise as white-box. In this paper we compare the performance of several black-box methods against gradcam on a brain cancer MRI dataset. We demonstrate that most black-box tools are not suitable for explaining medical image classifications and present a detailed analysis of the reasons for their shortcomings. We also show that one black-box tool, a causal explainability-based rex, performs as well as \gradcam.

In soccer, it is not uncommon for one team to dominate a match, creating many chances to score but failing to do so, while the opposing team manages to convert one of their few chances into a goal and win the match. Thus, the use of traditional end-of-match statistics is often argued against, because the number of shots, ball possession percentage, and shots inside the opponent's penalty area do not always accurately reflect the outcome of the match. The rapid pace of technological advancements in data collection, storage, and analysis have had a revolutionary impact on soccer analytics over the last decade. Thanks to these advancements, soccer data is collected in two main forms: event data consists of ball-related events and where on the field they occurred such as shots, passes, tackles, and dribbles while tracking data consists of the position of players and the ball throughout play on the pitch. The technological revolution has made it possible to propose a large number of key performance indicators to measure different aspects of the game, such as pass evaluation, quantification of controlled space, shot evaluation, and goal-scoring opportunities using possession values.

Explainable AI typically involves tools & techniques to understand how a complex model behaves, in a simple, straightforward and intuitive way so humans can understand it. It answers why an automated decision making tool resulted in a specific output that impacts customers, but doesn't explain how. It's predicted the explainable AI market size is estimated to reach $21.8 billion by 2030, up from $4.1 billion in 2021. And Gartner's crystal ball paints a picture that "by 2025, 30% of government and large enterprise contracts for the purchase of AI products and services will require the use of explainable and ethical AI." So, what's fueling predicted market growth? The accelerant for the explainable AI market is due in part to EU advent of GPDR's Article 13-15 and 22, which establishes rights specific to algorithmic decision making, including a right of both notification and access to meaningful information about the logic involved and the right of the significance of and envisioned effects of solely automated decision making.

Many ML models are opaque to humans, producing decisions too complex for humans to easily understand. In response, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) tools that analyze the inner workings of a model have been created. Despite these tools' strength in translating model behavior, critiques have raised concerns about the impact of XAI tools as a tool for `fairwashing` by misleading users into trusting biased or incorrect models. In this paper, we created a framework for evaluating explainable AI tools with respect to their capabilities for detecting and addressing issues of bias and fairness as well as their capacity to communicate these results to their users clearly. We found that despite their capabilities in simplifying and explaining model behavior, many prominent XAI tools lack features that could be critical in detecting bias. Developers can use our framework to suggest modifications needed in their toolkits to reduce issues likes fairwashing.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) made leapfrogs of development and saw broader adoption across industry verticals when it introduced machine learning (ML). ML helps in learning the behavior of an entity using patterns detection and interpretation methods. However, despite its unlimited potential, the conundrum lies in how machine learning algorithms arrive at a decision in the first place. Questions like, "What are the processes they adopted, and at what speed? How did they make such autonomous decision?"