mstyslavity/prisma_v3 huggingface dataset:
Explainable AI (XAI) is concerned with how to make AI models more understandable to people. To date these explanations have predominantly been technocentric - mechanistic or productivity oriented. This paper introduces the Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) manifesto to provoke new ways of thinking about explainability and AI beyond technocentric discourses. Manifestos offer a means to communicate ideas, amplify unheard voices, and foster reflection on practice. To supports the co-creation and revision of the XAIxArts manifesto we combine a World Caf\'e style discussion format with a living manifesto to question four core themes: 1) Empowerment, Inclusion, and Fairness
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly advanced in recent years, driving innovation across various fields, especially in robotics. Even though robots can perform complex tasks with increasing autonomy, challenges remain in ensuring explainability and user-centered design for effective interaction. A key issue in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) is enabling robots to effectively perceive and reason over multimodal inputs, such as audio and vision, to foster trust and seamless collaboration. In this paper, we propose a generalized and explainable multimodal framework for context representation, designed to improve the fusion of speech and vision modalities. We introduce a use case on assessing 'Relevance' between verbal utterances from the user and visual scene perception of the robot. We present our methodology with a Multimodal Joint Representation module and a Temporal Alignment module, which can allow robots to evaluate relevance by temporally aligning multimodal inputs. Finally, we discuss how the proposed framework for context representation can help with various aspects of explainability in HRI.
Verification of biomedical claims is critical for healthcare decision-making, public health policy and scientific research. We present an interactive biomedical claim verification system by integrating LLMs, transparent model explanations, and user-guided justification. In the system, users first retrieve relevant scientific studies from a persistent medical literature corpus and explore how different LLMs perform natural language inference (NLI) within task-adaptive reasoning framework to classify each study as "Support," "Contradict," or "Not Enough Information" regarding the claim. Users can examine the model's reasoning process with additional insights provided by SHAP values that highlight word-level contributions to the final result. This combination enables a more transparent and interpretable evaluation of the model's decision-making process. A summary stage allows users to consolidate the results by selecting a result with narrative justification generated by LLMs. As a result, a consensus-based final decision is summarized for each retrieved study, aiming safe and accountable AI-assisted decision-making in biomedical contexts. We aim to integrate this explainable verification system as a component within a broader evidence synthesis framework to support human-AI collaboration.
Algorithmic solutions have significant potential to improve decision-making across various domains, from healthcare to e-commerce. However, the widespread adoption of these solutions is hindered by a critical challenge: the lack of human-interpretable explanations. Current approaches to Explainable AI (XAI) predominantly focus on complex machine learning models, often producing brittle and non-intuitive explanations. This project proposes a novel approach to developing explainable algorithms by starting with optimization problems, specifically the assignment problem. The developed software library enriches basic algorithms with human-understandable explanations through four key methodologies: generating meaningful alternative solutions, creating robust solutions through input perturbation, generating concise decision trees and providing reports with comprehensive explanation of the results. Currently developed tools are often designed with specific clustering algorithms in mind, which limits their adaptability and flexibility to incorporate alternative techniques. Additionally, many of these tools fail to integrate expert knowledge, which could enhance the clustering process by providing valuable insights and context. This lack of adaptability and integration can hinder the effectiveness and robustness of the clustering outcomes in various applications. The represents a step towards making algorithmic solutions more transparent, trustworthy, and accessible. By collaborating with industry partners in sectors such as sales, we demonstrate the practical relevance and transformative potential of our approach.
As AI systems are used in high-stakes applications, ensuring interpretability is crucial. Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) aims to reverse-engineer neural networks by extracting human-understandable algorithms to explain their behavior. This work examines a key question: for a given behavior, and under MI's criteria, does a unique explanation exist? Drawing on identifiability in statistics, where parameters are uniquely inferred under specific assumptions, we explore the identifiability of MI explanations. We identify two main MI strategies: (1) "where-then-what," which isolates a circuit replicating model behavior before interpreting it, and (2) "what-then-where," which starts with candidate algorithms and searches for neural activation subspaces implementing them, using causal alignment. We test both strategies on Boolean functions and small multi-layer perceptrons, fully enumerating candidate explanations. Our experiments reveal systematic non-identifiability: multiple circuits can replicate behavior, a circuit can have multiple interpretations, several algorithms can align with the network, and one algorithm can align with different subspaces. Is uniqueness necessary? A pragmatic approach may require only predictive and manipulability standards. If uniqueness is essential for understanding, stricter criteria may be needed. We also reference the inner interpretability framework, which validates explanations through multiple criteria. This work contributes to defining explanation standards in AI.
Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have shown remarkable potential in bridging visual and textual modalities. In computational pathology, domain-specific VLMs, which are pre-trained on extensive histopathology image-text datasets, have succeeded in various downstream tasks. However, existing research has primarily focused on the pre-training process and direct applications of VLMs on the patch level, leaving their great potential for whole slide image (WSI) applications unexplored. In this study, we hypothesize that pre-trained VLMs inherently capture informative and interpretable WSI representations through quantitative feature extraction. To validate this hypothesis, we introduce Vision and Language Embeddings for Explainable WSI Representation (VLEER), a novel method designed to leverage VLMs for WSI representation. We systematically evaluate VLEER on three pathological WSI datasets, proving its better performance in WSI analysis compared to conventional vision features. More importantly, VLEER offers the unique advantage of interpretability, enabling direct human-readable insights into the results by leveraging the textual modality for detailed pathology annotations, providing clear reasoning for WSI-level pathology downstream tasks.
In human-AI interactions, explanation is widely seen as necessary for enabling trust in AI systems. We argue that trust, however, may be a pre-requisite because explanation is sometimes impossible. We derive this result from a formalization of explanation as a search process through knowledge networks, where explainers must find paths between shared concepts and the concept to be explained, within finite time. Our model reveals that explanation can fail even under theoretically ideal conditions - when actors are rational, honest, motivated, can communicate perfectly, and possess overlapping knowledge. This is because successful explanation requires not just the existence of shared knowledge but also finding the connection path within time constraints, and it can therefore be rational to cease attempts at explanation before the shared knowledge is discovered. This result has important implications for human-AI interaction: as AI systems, particularly Large Language Models, become more sophisticated and able to generate superficially compelling but spurious explanations, humans may default to trust rather than demand genuine explanations. This creates risks of both misplaced trust and imperfect knowledge integration.
EXplainable machine learning (XML) has recently emerged to address the mystery mechanisms of machine learning (ML) systems by interpreting their 'black box' results. Despite the development of various explanation methods, determining the most suitable XML method for specific ML contexts remains unclear, highlighting the need for effective evaluation of explanations. The evaluating capabilities of the Transformer-based large language model (LLM) present an opportunity to adopt LLM-as-a-Judge for assessing explanations. In this paper, we propose a workflow that integrates both LLM-based and human judges for evaluating explanations. We examine how LLM-based judges evaluate the quality of various explanation methods and compare their evaluation capabilities to those of human judges within an iris classification scenario, employing both subjective and objective metrics. We conclude that while LLM-based judges effectively assess the quality of explanations using subjective metrics, they are not yet sufficiently developed to replace human judges in this role.
In this short paper we address issues related to building multimodal AI systems for human performance support in manufacturing domains. We make two contributions: we first identify challenges of participatory design and training of such systems, and secondly, to address such challenges, we propose the ACE paradigm: "Action and Control via Explanations". Specifically, we suggest that LLMs can be used to produce explanations in the form of human interpretable "semantic frames", which in turn enable end users to provide data the AI system needs to align its multimodal models and representations, including computer vision, automatic speech recognition, and document inputs. ACE, by using LLMs to "explain" using semantic frames, will help the human and the AI system to collaborate, together building a more accurate model of humans activities and behaviors, and ultimately more accurate predictive outputs for better task support, and better outcomes for human users performing manual tasks.
Some things are impossible, but some things may be even more impossible than impossible. Levitating a feather using one's mind is impossible in our world, but fits into our intuitive theories of possible worlds, whereas levitating a feather using the number five cannot be conceived in any possible world ("inconceivable"). While prior work has examined the distinction between improbable and impossible events, there has been little empirical research on inconceivability. Here, we investigate whether people maintain a distinction between impossibility and inconceivability, and how such distinctions might be made. We find that people can readily distinguish the impossible from the inconceivable, using categorization studies similar to those used to investigate the differences between impossible and improbable (Experiment 1). However, this distinction is not explained by people's subjective ratings of event likelihood, which are near zero and indistinguishable between impossible and inconceivable event descriptions (Experiment 2). Finally, we ask whether the probabilities assigned to event descriptions by statistical language models (LMs) can be used to separate modal categories, and whether these probabilities align with people's ratings (Experiment 3). We find high-level similarities between people and LMs: both distinguish among impossible and inconceivable event descriptions, and LM-derived string probabilities predict people's ratings of event likelihood across modal categories. Our findings suggest that fine-grained knowledge about exceedingly rare events (i.e., the impossible and inconceivable) may be learned via statistical learning over linguistic forms, yet leave open the question of whether people represent the distinction between impossible and inconceivable as a difference not of degree, but of kind.
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEvalPro, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEvalPro comprises $2,138$ question triplets, totaling $6,414$ distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging (the best LMM lags behind human performance by $31.73\%$, compared to an average gap of $8.03\%$ in previous benchmarks) and more trustworthy (the best LLM trails the best LMM by $23.09\%$, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just $14.64\%$). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.
The scientific method is the cornerstone of human progress across all branches of the natural and applied sciences, from understanding the human body to explaining how the universe works. The scientific method is based on identifying systematic rules or principles that describe the phenomenon of interest in a reproducible way that can be validated through experimental evidence. In the era of generative artificial intelligence, there are discussions on how AI systems may discover new knowledge. We argue that human complex reasoning for scientific discovery remains of vital importance, at least before the advent of artificial general intelligence. Yet, AI can be leveraged for scientific discovery via explainable AI. More specifically, knowing the `principles' the AI systems used to make decisions can be a point of contact with domain experts and scientists, that can lead to divergent or convergent views on a given scientific problem. Divergent views may spark further scientific investigations leading to interpretability-guided explanations (IGEs), and possibly to new scientific knowledge. We define this field as Explainable AI for Science, where domain experts -- potentially assisted by generative AI -- formulate scientific hypotheses and explanations based on the interpretability of a predictive AI system.
The complex nature of disease mechanisms and the variability of patient symptoms pose significant challenges in developing effective diagnostic tools. Although machine learning (ML) has made substantial advances in medical diagnosis, the decision-making processes of these models often lack transparency, potentially jeopardizing patient outcomes. This review aims to highlight the role of Explainable AI (XAI) in addressing the interpretability issues of ML models in healthcare, with a focus on chronic conditions such as Parkinson's, stroke, depression, cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases to identify studies that applied XAI techniques in healthcare. The search focused on XAI algorithms used in diagnosing and monitoring chronic diseases. The review identified the application of nine trending XAI algorithms, each evaluated for their advantages and limitations in various healthcare contexts. The findings underscore the importance of transparency in ML models, which is crucial for improving trust and outcomes in clinical practice. While XAI provides significant potential to bridge the gap between complex ML models and clinical practice, challenges such as scalability, validation, and clinician acceptance remain. The review also highlights areas requiring further research, particularly in integrating XAI into healthcare systems. The study concludes that XAI methods offer a promising path forward for enhancing human health monitoring and patient care, though significant challenges must be addressed to fully realize their potential in clinical settings.
Reward models (RMs) are a crucial component in the alignment of large language models' (LLMs) outputs with human values. RMs approximate human preferences over possible LLM responses to the same prompt by predicting and comparing reward scores. However, as they are typically modified versions of LLMs with scalar output heads, RMs are large black boxes whose predictions are not explainable. More transparent RMs would enable improved trust in the alignment of LLMs. In this work, we propose to use contrastive explanations to explain any binary response comparison made by an RM. Specifically, we generate a diverse set of new comparisons similar to the original one to characterise the RM's local behaviour. The perturbed responses forming the new comparisons are generated to explicitly modify manually specified high-level evaluation attributes, on which analyses of RM behaviour are grounded. In quantitative experiments, we validate the effectiveness of our method for finding high-quality contrastive explanations. We then showcase the qualitative usefulness of our method for investigating global sensitivity of RMs to each evaluation attribute, and demonstrate how representative examples can be automatically extracted to explain and compare behaviours of different RMs. We see our method as a flexible framework for RM explanation, providing a basis for more interpretable and trustworthy LLM alignment.
Hyperparameter optimization is critical in modern machine learning, requiring expert knowledge, numerous trials, and high computational and human resources. Despite the advancements in Automated Machine Learning (AutoML), challenges in terms of trial efficiency, setup complexity, and interoperability still persist. To address these issues, we introduce a novel paradigm leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate hyperparameter optimization across diverse machine learning tasks, which is named AgentHPO (short for LLM Agent-based Hyperparameter Optimization). Specifically, AgentHPO processes the task information autonomously, conducts experiments with specific hyperparameters (HPs), and iteratively optimizes them based on historical trials. This human-like optimization process largely reduces the number of required trials, simplifies the setup process, and enhances interpretability and user trust, compared to traditional AutoML methods. Extensive empirical experiments conducted on 12 representative machine-learning tasks indicate that AgentHPO not only matches but also often surpasses the best human trials in terms of performance while simultaneously providing explainable results. Further analysis sheds light on the strategies employed by the LLM in optimizing these tasks, highlighting its effectiveness and adaptability in various scenarios.
This paper presents a novel framework, called PLANTOR (PLanning with Natural language for Task-Oriented Robots), that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) with Prolog-based knowledge management and planning for multi-robot tasks. The system employs a two-phase generation of a robot-oriented knowledge base, ensuring reusability and compositional reasoning, as well as a three-step planning procedure that handles temporal dependencies, resource constraints, and parallel task execution via mixed-integer linear programming. The final plan is converted into a Behaviour Tree for direct use in ROS2. We tested the framework in multi-robot assembly tasks within a block world and an arch-building scenario. Results demonstrate that LLMs can produce accurate knowledge bases with modest human feedback, while Prolog guarantees formal correctness and explainability. This approach underscores the potential of LLM integration for advanced robotics tasks requiring flexible, scalable, and human-understandable planning.
Scientific discovery relies on scientists generating novel hypotheses that undergo rigorous experimental validation. To augment this process, we introduce an AI co-scientist, a multi-agent system built on Gemini 2.0. The AI co-scientist is intended to help uncover new, original knowledge and to formulate demonstrably novel research hypotheses and proposals, building upon prior evidence and aligned to scientist-provided research objectives and guidance. The system's design incorporates a generate, debate, and evolve approach to hypothesis generation, inspired by the scientific method and accelerated by scaling test-time compute. Key contributions include: (1) a multi-agent architecture with an asynchronous task execution framework for flexible compute scaling; (2) a tournament evolution process for self-improving hypotheses generation. Automated evaluations show continued benefits of test-time compute, improving hypothesis quality. While general purpose, we focus development and validation in three biomedical areas: drug repurposing, novel target discovery, and explaining mechanisms of bacterial evolution and anti-microbial resistance. For drug repurposing, the system proposes candidates with promising validation findings, including candidates for acute myeloid leukemia that show tumor inhibition in vitro at clinically applicable concentrations. For novel target discovery, the AI co-scientist proposed new epigenetic targets for liver fibrosis, validated by anti-fibrotic activity and liver cell regeneration in human hepatic organoids. Finally, the AI co-scientist recapitulated unpublished experimental results via a parallel in silico discovery of a novel gene transfer mechanism in bacterial evolution. These results, detailed in separate, co-timed reports, demonstrate the potential to augment biomedical and scientific discovery and usher an era of AI empowered scientists.