mstyslavity/prisma_v3 huggingface dataset:
Explainable AI (XAI) is widely viewed as a sine qua non for ever-expanding AI research. A better understanding of the needs of XAI users, as well as human-centered evaluations of explainable models are both a necessity and a challenge. In this paper, we explore how HCI and AI researchers conduct user studies in XAI applications based on a systematic literature review. After identifying and thoroughly analyzing 97core papers with human-based XAI evaluations over the past five years, we categorize them along the measured characteristics of explanatory methods, namely trust, understanding, usability, and human-AI collaboration performance. Our research shows that XAI is spreading more rapidly in certain application domains, such as recommender systems than in others, but that user evaluations are still rather sparse and incorporate hardly any insights from cognitive or social sciences. Based on a comprehensive discussion of best practices, i.e., common models, design choices, and measures in user studies, we propose practical guidelines on designing and conducting user studies for XAI researchers and practitioners. Lastly, this survey also highlights several open research directions, particularly linking psychological science and human-centered XAI.
Persona-driven role-playing (PRP) aims to build AI characters that can respond to user queries by faithfully sticking with all persona statements. Unfortunately, existing faithfulness criteria for PRP are limited to coarse-grained LLM-based scoring without a clear definition or formulation. This paper presents a pioneering exploration to quantify PRP faithfulness as a fine-grained and explainable criterion, which also serves as a reliable reference for optimization. Our criterion first discriminates persona statements into active and passive constraints by identifying the query-statement relevance. Then, we incorporate all constraints following the principle that the AI character's response should be (a) entailed by active (relevant) constraints and (b) not contradicted by passive (irrelevant) constraints. We translate this principle mathematically into a novel Active-Passive-Constraint (APC) score, a constraint-wise sum of natural language inference (NLI) scores weighted by relevance scores. In practice, we build the APC scoring system by symbolically distilling small discriminators from GPT-4 for efficiency. We validate the quality of the APC score against human evaluation based on example personas with tens of statements, and the results show a high correlation. We further leverage it as a reward system in direct preference optimization (DPO) for better AI characters. Our experiments offer a fine-grained and explainable comparison between existing PRP techniques, revealing their advantages and limitations. We further find APC-based DPO to be one of the most competitive techniques for sticking with all constraints and can be well incorporated with other techniques. We then extend the scale of the experiments to real persons with hundreds of statements and reach a consistent conclusion.
As LLMs increasingly take on roles in human-AI interactions and autonomous AI systems, understanding their social behavior becomes important for informed use and continuous improvement. However, their behaviors in social interactions with humans and other agents, as well as the mechanisms shaping their responses, remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel probabilistic framework, State-Understanding-Value-Action (SUVA), to systematically analyze LLM responses in social contexts based on their textual outputs (i.e., utterances). Using canonical behavioral economics games and social preference concepts relatable to LLM users, SUVA assesses LLMs' social behavior through both their final decisions and the response generation processes leading to those decisions. Our analysis of eight LLMs -- including two GPT, four LLaMA, and two Mistral models -- suggests that most models do not generate decisions aligned solely with self-interest; instead, they often produce responses that reflect social welfare considerations and display patterns consistent with direct and indirect reciprocity. Additionally, higher-capacity models more frequently display group identity effects. The SUVA framework also provides explainable tools -- including tree-based visualizations and probabilistic dependency analysis -- to elucidate how factors in LLMs' utterance-based reasoning influence their decisions. We demonstrate that utterance-based reasoning reliably predicts LLMs' final actions; references to altruism, fairness, and cooperation in the reasoning increase the likelihood of prosocial actions, while mentions of self-interest and competition reduce them. Overall, our framework enables practitioners to assess LLMs for applications involving social interactions, and provides researchers with a structured method to interpret how LLM behavior arises from utterance-based reasoning.
Learning rewards from human behaviour or feedback is a promising approach to aligning AI systems with human values but fails to consistently extract correct reward functions. Interpretability tools could enable users to understand and evaluate possible flaws in learned reward functions. We propose Counterfactual Trajectory Explanations (CTEs) to interpret reward functions in reinforcement learning by contrasting an original with a counterfactual partial trajectory and the rewards they each receive. We derive six quality criteria for CTEs and propose a novel Monte-Carlo-based algorithm for generating CTEs that optimises these quality criteria. Finally, we measure how informative the generated explanations are to a proxy-human model by training it on CTEs. CTEs are demonstrably informative for the proxy-human model, increasing the similarity between its predictions and the reward function on unseen trajectories. Further, it learns to accurately judge differences in rewards between trajectories and generalises to out-of-distribution examples. Although CTEs do not lead to a perfect understanding of the reward, our method, and more generally the adaptation of XAI methods, are presented as a fruitful approach for interpreting learned reward functions.
Since LLMs emerged, more attention has been paid to abstractive long-form summarization, where longer input sequences indicate more information contained. Nevertheless, the automatic evaluation of such summaries remains underexplored. The current evaluation metrics for long-form summarization either use similarity-based metrics like ROUGE and BERTScore or LLM-based metrics using appropriate prompts or pre-defined schema. We argue that the former only relies on similarity and fails to consider informativeness while the latter lacks quantitative analysis of informative richness, and is rather subjective and hard to explain. Current evaluation metrics either use traditional metrics like ROUGE and BERTScore, which rely on surface-level similarity and fail to consider informativeness, or simple LLM-based metrics, which are not robust and easily overwhelmed by the long contexts. In this paper, we propose a new evaluation metric called EVA-Score to extract all information from the given summaries, identify overlapped information based on reference, and calculate the information score. We test EVA-Score on several datasets and the experimental results reveal that EVA-Score shows the highest correlation with humans. We also re-evaluate the performance of LLMs on long-form summarization from the information perspective. The results indicate that responses of LLMs still have a gap with the human-written answers. Moreover, we provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of EVA-Score, forecasting future ways to automatically evaluate abstractive long-form summarization.
Amyloid-$\beta$ (A$\beta$) plaques in conjunction with hyperphosphorylated tau proteins in the form of neurofibrillary tangles are the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. It is well-known that the identification of individuals with A$\beta$ positivity could enable early diagnosis. In this work, we aim at capturing the A$\beta$ positivity status in an unbalanced cohort enclosing subjects at different disease stages, exploiting the underlying structural and connectivity disease-induced modulations as revealed by structural, functional, and diffusion MRI. Of note, due to the unbalanced cohort, the outcomes may be guided by those factors rather than amyloid accumulation. The partial views provided by each modality are integrated in the model allowing to take full advantage of their complementarity in encoding the effects of the A$\beta$ accumulation, leading to an accuracy of $0.762\pm0.04$. The specificity of the information brought by each modality is assessed by \textit{post-hoc} explainability analysis (guided backpropagation), highlighting the underlying structural and functional changes. Noteworthy, well-established biomarker key regions related to A$\beta$ deposition could be identified by all modalities, including the hippocampus, thalamus, precuneus, and cingulate gyrus, witnessing in favor of the reliability of the method as well as its potential in shading light on modality-specific possibly unknown A$\beta$ deposition signatures.
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for building advanced machine learning-powered applications, especially in critical domains such as medical diagnostics or autonomous driving. Legal, business, and ethical requirements motivate using effective XAI, but the increasing number of different methods makes it challenging to pick the right ones. Further, as explanations are highly context-dependent, measuring the effectiveness of XAI methods without users can only reveal a limited amount of information, excluding human factors such as the ability to understand it. We propose to evaluate XAI methods via the user's ability to successfully perform a proxy task, designed such that a good performance is an indicator for the explanation to provide helpful information. In other words, we address the helpfulness of XAI for human decision-making. Further, a user study on state-of-the-art methods was conducted, showing differences in their ability to generate trust and skepticism and the ability to judge the rightfulness of an AI decision correctly. Based on the results, we highly recommend using and extending this approach for more objective-based human-centered user studies to measure XAI performance in an end-to-end fashion.
Reasoning is key to many decision making processes. It requires consolidating a set of rule-like premises that are often associated with degrees of uncertainty and observations to draw conclusions. In this work, we address both the case where premises are specified as numeric probabilistic rules and situations in which humans state their estimates using words expressing degrees of certainty. Existing probabilistic reasoning datasets simplify the task, e.g., by requiring the model to only rank textual alternatives, by including only binary random variables, or by making use of a limited set of templates that result in less varied text. In this work, we present QUITE, a question answering dataset of real-world Bayesian reasoning scenarios with categorical random variables and complex relationships. QUITE provides high-quality natural language verbalizations of premises together with evidence statements and expects the answer to a question in the form of an estimated probability. We conduct an extensive set of experiments, finding that logic-based models outperform out-of-the-box large language models on all reasoning types (causal, evidential, and explaining-away). Our results provide evidence that neuro-symbolic models are a promising direction for improving complex reasoning. We release QUITE and code for training and experiments on Github.
Supervised Learning is a way of developing Artificial Intelligence systems in which a computer algorithm is trained on labeled data inputs. Effectiveness of a Supervised Learning algorithm is determined by its performance on a given dataset for a particular problem. In case of Supervised Learning problems, Stacking Ensembles usually perform better than individual classifiers due to their generalization ability. Stacking Ensembles combine predictions from multiple Machine Learning algorithms to make final predictions. Inspite of Stacking Ensembles superior performance, the overhead of Stacking Ensembles such as high cost, resources, time, and lack of explainability create challenges in real-life applications. This paper shows how we can strike a balance between performance, time, and resource constraints. Another goal of this research is to make Ensembles more explainable and intelligible using the Human-Centered approach. To achieve the aforementioned goals, we proposed a Human-Centered Behavior-inspired algorithm that streamlines the Ensemble Learning process while also reducing time, cost, and resource overhead, resulting in the superior performance of Supervised Learning in real-world applications. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we perform our experiments on nine real-world datasets. Experimental results reveal that the proposed method satisfies our goals and outperforms the existing methods.
The atmospheric characterisation of GJ1214 b has so far remained uncertain due to the observed flatness of the transit spectra of this planet that is typically attributed to the presence of hazes or clouds in its atmosphere. Here we combine for the first time transit and eclipse observations obtained with JWST to benefit from both type of constraints and advance on the atmospheric characterisation of GJ1214 b. Our results reveal that photochemical hazes can be produced at high enough mass fluxes in the atmosphere of GJ1214 b to explain both type of observations. These hazes have a drastic impact on the atmospheric thermal structure, which has further ramifications on the emitted radiation of the planet, as well as, its Bond albedo. Clouds of KCL, NaCL and ZnS composition also form in this atmosphere but their opacity is too small to explain the observed flatness of the transit spectrum. We find that metallicities in the range 2000-3000x solar provide atmospheric structures that are closest to the observations for haze mass fluxes in the range of (1-3)x1E-11 g cm-2 s-1. Correspondingly the Bond albedo is within 10-20%. Moreover, sulfur photochemistry produces abundant OCS that has a detectable signature in the transit spectra and should be seaked for in future observations. Sulfur should also participate to the haze formation in this atmosphere, therefore optical properties of such compounds are needed.
Generating rationales that justify scoring decisions has been a promising way to facilitate explainability in automated scoring systems. However, existing methods do not match the accuracy of classifier-based methods. Plus, the generated rationales often contain hallucinated information. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework capable of generating more faithful rationales and, more importantly, matching performance with classifier-based black-box scoring systems. We first mimic the human assessment process by querying Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate a thought tree. We then summarise intermediate assessment decisions from each thought tree path for creating synthetic rationale data and rationale preference data. Finally, we utilise the generated synthetic data to calibrate LLMs through a two-step training process: supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves a 38% assessment performance improvement in the QWK score compared to prior work while producing higher-quality rationales, as recognised by human evaluators and LLMs. Our work sheds light on the effectiveness of performing preference optimization using synthetic preference data obtained from thought tree paths. Data and code are available at https://github.com/lijiazheng99/thought_tree_assessment.
Metaphors are everywhere. They appear extensively across all domains of natural language, from the most sophisticated poetry to seemingly dry academic prose. A significant body of research in the cognitive science of language argues for the existence of conceptual metaphors, the systematic structuring of one domain of experience in the language of another. Conceptual metaphors are not simply rhetorical flourishes but are crucial evidence of the role of analogical reasoning in human cognition. In this paper, we ask whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can accurately identify and explain the presence of such conceptual metaphors in natural language data. Using a novel prompting technique based on metaphor annotation guidelines, we demonstrate that LLMs are a promising tool for large-scale computational research on conceptual metaphors. Further, we show that LLMs are able to apply procedural guidelines designed for human annotators, displaying a surprising depth of linguistic knowledge.
As machine learning models become increasingly complex, concerns about their robustness and trustworthiness have become more pressing. A critical vulnerability of these models is data poisoning attacks, where adversaries deliberately alter training data to degrade model performance. One particularly stealthy form of these attacks is subpopulation poisoning, which targets distinct subgroups within a dataset while leaving overall performance largely intact. The ability of these attacks to generalize within subpopulations poses a significant risk in real-world settings, as they can be exploited to harm marginalized or underrepresented groups within the dataset. In this work, we investigate how model complexity influences susceptibility to subpopulation poisoning attacks. We introduce a theoretical framework that explains how overparameterized models, due to their large capacity, can inadvertently memorize and misclassify targeted subpopulations. To validate our theory, we conduct extensive experiments on large-scale image and text datasets using popular model architectures. Our results show a clear trend: models with more parameters are significantly more vulnerable to subpopulation poisoning. Moreover, we find that attacks on smaller, human-interpretable subgroups often go undetected by these models. These results highlight the need to develop defenses that specifically address subpopulation vulnerabilities.
Recent years have seen a growing interest in methods for predicting an unknown variable of interest, such as a subject's diagnosis, from medical images depicting its anatomical-functional effects. Methods based on discriminative modeling excel at making accurate predictions, but are challenged in their ability to explain their decisions in anatomically meaningful terms. In this paper, we propose a simple technique for single-subject prediction that is inherently interpretable. It augments the generative models used in classical human brain mapping techniques, in which the underlying cause-effect relations can be encoded, with a multivariate noise model that captures dominant spatial correlations. Experiments demonstrate that the resulting model can be efficiently inverted to make accurate subject-level predictions, while at the same time offering intuitive visual explanations of its inner workings. The method is easy to use: training is fast for typical training set sizes, and only a single hyperparameter needs to be set by the user. Our code is available at https://github.com/chiara-mauri/Interpretable-subject-level-prediction.
Developing a new diagnostic models based on the underlying biological mechanisms rather than subjective symptoms for psychiatric disorders is an emerging consensus. Recently, machine learning-based classifiers using functional connectivity (FC) for psychiatric disorders and healthy controls are developed to identify brain markers. However, existing machine learning-based diagnostic models are prone to over-fitting (due to insufficient training samples) and perform poorly in new test environment. Furthermore, it is difficult to obtain explainable and reliable brain biomarkers elucidating the underlying diagnostic decisions. These issues hinder their possible clinical applications. In this work, we propose BrainIB, a new graph neural network (GNN) framework to analyze functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI), by leveraging the famed Information Bottleneck (IB) principle. BrainIB is able to identify the most informative edges in the brain (i.e., subgraph) and generalizes well to unseen data. We evaluate the performance of BrainIB against 3 baselines and 7 state-of-the-art brain network classification methods on three psychiatric datasets and observe that our BrainIB always achieves the highest diagnosis accuracy. It also discovers the subgraph biomarkers which are consistent to clinical and neuroimaging findings. The source code and implementation details of BrainIB are freely available at GitHub repository (https://github.com/SJYuCNEL/brain-and-Information-Bottleneck/).
As the complexity of multi-robot systems grows to incorporate a greater number of robots, more complex tasks, and longer time horizons, the solutions to such problems often become too complex to be fully intelligible to human users. In this work, we introduce an approach for generating natural language explanations that justify the validity of the system's solution to the user, or else aid the user in correcting any errors that led to a suboptimal system solution. Toward this goal, we first contribute a generalizable formalism of contrastive explanations for multi-robot systems, and then introduce a holistic approach to generating contrastive explanations for multi-robot scenarios that selectively incorporates data from multi-robot task allocation, scheduling, and motion-planning to explain system behavior. Through user studies with human operators we demonstrate that our integrated contrastive explanation approach leads to significant improvements in user ability to identify and solve system errors, leading to significant improvements in overall multi-robot team performance.
Measures of voting power have been the subject of extensive research since the mid 1940s. More recently, similar measures of relative importance have been studied in other domains that include inconsistent knowledge bases, intensity of attacks in argumentation, different problems in the analysis of database management, and explainability. This paper demonstrates that all these examples are instantiations of computing measures of importance for a rather more general problem domain. The paper then shows that the best-known measures of importance can be computed for any reference set whenever one is given a monotonically increasing predicate that partitions the subsets of that reference set. As a consequence, the paper also proves that measures of importance can be devised in several domains, for some of which such measures have not yet been studied nor proposed. Furthermore, the paper highlights several research directions related with computing measures of importance.