mstyslavity/prisma_v3 huggingface dataset:
Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a prominent method in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), providing intuitive and actionable insights into Machine Learning model decisions. In contrast to other traditional feature attribution methods that assess the importance of input variables, counterfactual explanations focus on identifying the minimal changes required to alter a model's prediction, offering a ``what-if'' analysis that is close to human reasoning. In the context of XAI, counterfactuals enhance transparency, trustworthiness and fairness, offering explanations that are not just interpretable but directly applicable in the decision-making processes. In this paper, we present a novel framework that integrates perturbation theory and statistical mechanics to generate minimal counterfactual explanations in explainable AI. We employ a local Taylor expansion of a Machine Learning model's predictive function and reformulate the counterfactual search as an energy minimization problem over a complex landscape. In sequence, we model the probability of candidate perturbations leveraging the Boltzmann distribution and use simulated annealing for iterative refinement. Our approach systematically identifies the smallest modifications required to change a model's prediction while maintaining plausibility. Experimental results on benchmark datasets for cybersecurity in Internet of Things environments, demonstrate that our method provides actionable, interpretable counterfactuals and offers deeper insights into model sensitivity and decision boundaries in high-dimensional spaces.
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated that fine-tuning and human alignment can render LLMs harmless. In practice, such "harmlessness" behavior is mainly achieved by training models to reject harmful requests, such as "Explain how to burn down my neighbor's house", where the model appropriately declines to respond. However, this approach can inadvertently result in false refusal, where models reject benign queries as well, such as "Tell me how to kill a Python process". In this work, we demonstrate that prompting safety reflection before generating a response can mitigate false refusal behavior. Building on this finding, we introduce the Think-Before-Refusal (TBR) schema and conduct safety-aware instruction fine-tuning incorporating safety reflection. In an ablation study across 15 pre-trained models, we show that models fine-tuned with safety reflection significantly reduce false refusal behavior while maintaining safety and overall performance compared to those fine-tuned without safety reflection.
Although DRL (deep reinforcement learning) has emerged as a powerful tool for making better decisions than existing hand-crafted communication protocols, it faces significant limitations: 1) Selecting the appropriate neural network architecture and setting hyperparameters are crucial for achieving desired performance levels, requiring domain expertise. 2) The decision-making process in DRL models is often opaque, commonly described as a 'black box.' 3) DRL models are data hungry. In response, we propose CP-AgentNet, the first framework designed to use generative agents for developing communication network protocols. This approach addresses these challenges by creating an autonomous system for protocol design, significantly reducing human effort. We developed LLMA (LLM-agents-based multiple access) and CPTCP (CP-Agent-based TCP) for heterogeneous environments. Our comprehensive simulations have demonstrated the efficient coexistence of LLMA and CPTCP with nodes using different types of protocols, as well as enhanced explainability.
The desirable properties of explanations in information systems have fueled the demands for transparency in artificial intelligence (AI) outputs. To address these demands, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has put forth methods that can support human decision-making by explaining AI outputs. However, current empirical works present inconsistent findings on whether such explanations help to improve users' task performance in decision support systems (DSS). In this paper, we conduct a meta-analysis to explore how XAI affects human performance in classification tasks. Our results show an improvement in task performance through XAI-based decision support, though explanations themselves are not the decisive driver for this improvement. The analysis reveals that the studies' risk of bias moderates the effect of explanations in AI, while the explanation type appears to play only a negligible role. Our findings contribute to the human computer interaction field by enhancing the understanding of human-XAI collaboration in DSS.
With the availability of virtually infinite number text documents in digital format, automatic comparison of textual data is essential for extracting meaningful insights that are difficult to identify manually. Many existing tools, including AI and large language models, struggle to provide precise and explainable insights into textual similarities. In many cases they determine the similarity between documents as reflected by the text, rather than the similarities between the subjects being discussed in these documents. This study addresses these limitations by developing an n-gram analysis framework designed to compare documents automatically and uncover explainable similarities. A scoring formula is applied to assigns each of the n-grams with a weight, where the weight is higher when the n-grams are more frequent in both documents, but is penalized when the n-grams are more frequent in the English language. Visualization tools like word clouds enhance the representation of these patterns, providing clearer insights. The findings demonstrate that this framework effectively uncovers similarities between text documents, offering explainable insights that are often difficult to identify manually. This non-parametric approach provides a deterministic solution for identifying similarities across various fields, including biographies, scientific literature, historical texts, and more. Code for the method is publicly available.
As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly embedded in ethically sensitive domains such as education, healthcare, and transportation, the need to balance accuracy and interpretability in decision-making has become a central concern. Coarse Ethics (CE) is a theoretical framework that justifies coarse-grained evaluations, such as letter grades or warning labels, as ethically appropriate under cognitive and contextual constraints. However, CE has lacked mathematical formalization. This paper introduces Coarse Set Theory (CST), a novel mathematical framework that models coarse-grained decision-making using totally ordered structures and coarse partitions. CST defines hierarchical relations among sets and uses information-theoretic tools, such as Kullback-Leibler Divergence, to quantify the trade-off between simplification and information loss. We demonstrate CST through applications in educational grading and explainable AI (XAI), showing how it enables more transparent and context-sensitive evaluations. By grounding coarse evaluations in set theory and probabilistic reasoning, CST contributes to the ethical design of interpretable AI systems. This work bridges formal methods and human-centered ethics, offering a principled approach to balancing comprehensibility, fairness, and informational integrity in AI-driven decisions.
Artificial intelligence systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents that interact with users and with the world. To do so successfully, LLMs need to construct internal representations of the world and form probabilistic beliefs about those representations. To provide a user with personalized recommendations, for example, the LLM needs to gradually infer the user's preferences, over the course of multiple interactions. To evaluate whether contemporary LLMs are able to do so, we use the Bayesian inference framework from probability theory, which lays out the optimal way to update an agent's beliefs as it receives new information. We first show that the LLMs do not update their beliefs as expected from the Bayesian framework, and that consequently their predictions do not improve as expected as more information becomes available, even less so than we find is the case for humans. To address this issue, we teach the LLMs to reason in a Bayesian manner by training them to mimic the predictions of an optimal Bayesian model. We find that this approach not only significantly improves the LLM's performance on the particular recommendation task it is trained on, but also enables generalization to other tasks. This suggests that this method endows the LLM with broader Bayesian reasoning skills. More generally, our results indicate that LLMs can learn about reasoning strategies effectively and generalize those skills to new domains, which in part explains LLMs' empirical success.
As robots and digital assistants are deployed in the real world, these agents must be able to communicate their decision-making criteria to build trust, improve human-robot teaming, and enable collaboration. While the field of explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) has made great strides to enable such communication, these advances often assume that one xAI approach is ideally suited to each problem (e.g., decision trees to explain how to triage patients in an emergency or feature-importance maps to explain radiology reports). This fails to recognize that users have diverse experiences or preferences for interaction modalities. In this work, we present two user-studies set in a simulated autonomous vehicle (AV) domain. We investigate (1) population-level preferences for xAI and (2) personalization strategies for providing robot explanations. We find significant differences between xAI modes (language explanations, feature-importance maps, and decision trees) in both preference (p < 0.01) and performance (p < 0.05). We also observe that a participant's preferences do not always align with their performance, motivating our development of an adaptive personalization strategy to balance the two. We show that this strategy yields significant performance gains (p < 0.05), and we conclude with a discussion of our findings and implications for xAI in human-robot interactions.
Transportation systems will be likely transformed by the emergence of automated vehicles (AVs) promising for safe, convenient, and efficient mobility, especially if used in shared systems (shared AV or SAV). However, the potential tendency is observed towards owning AV as a private asset rather than using SAV. This calls for a research on investigating individuals' attitude towards AV in comparison with SAV to recognize the barriers to the public's tendency towards SAV. To do so, the present study proposes a modeling framework based on the theories in behavioral psychology to explain individuals' preference for owning AV over using SAV, built as a latent (subjective) psychometric construct, by three groups of explanatory latent constructs including: (i) desire for searching for benefits, i.e., extrinsic motive manifested in utilitarian beliefs; (ii) tendency towards seeking pleasure and joy, i.e., intrinsic motive reflected in hedonic beliefs; and (iii) attitude towards three configurations of shared mobility, i.e., experience with car and ridesharing, bikesharing, and public transit. Estimated on a sample dataset from the State of California, the findings can shed initial lights on the psychological determinants of the public's attitude towards owning AV versus using SAV, which can furthermore provide policy implications intriguing for policy makers and stakeholders. Of note, the findings reveal the strongest influential factor on preference for AV over SAV as hedonic beliefs reflected in perceived enjoyment. This preference is next affected by utilitarian beliefs, particularly perceived benefit and trust of stranger, followed by attitude towards car and ride sharing.
This study investigates cross-cultural differences in the perception of AI-driven chatbots between Germany and South Korea, focusing on topic dependency and explainability. Using a custom AI chat interface, ExplainitAI, we systematically examined these factors with quota-based samples from both countries (N = 297). Our findings revealed significant cultural distinctions: Korean participants exhibited higher trust, more positive user experience ratings, and more favorable perception of AI compared to German participants. Additionally, topic dependency was a key factor, with participants reporting lower trust in AI when addressing societally debated topics (e.g., migration) versus health or entertainment topics. These perceptions were further influenced by interactions among cultural context, content domains, and explainability conditions. The result highlights the importance of integrating cultural and contextual nuances into the design of AI systems, offering actionable insights for the development of culturally adaptive and explainable AI tailored to diverse user needs and expectations across domains.
In Human Activity Recognition (HAR), understanding the intricacy of body movements within high-risk applications is essential. This study uses SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to explain the decision-making process of Graph Convolution Networks (GCNs) when classifying activities with skeleton data. We employ SHAP to explain two real-world datasets: one for cerebral palsy (CP) classification and the widely used NTU RGB+D 60 action recognition dataset. To test the explanation, we introduce a novel perturbation approach that modifies the model's edge importance matrix, allowing us to evaluate the impact of specific body key points on prediction outcomes. To assess the fidelity of our explanations, we employ informed perturbation, targeting body key points identified as important by SHAP and comparing them against random perturbation as a control condition. This perturbation enables a judgment on whether the body key points are truly influential or non-influential based on the SHAP values. Results on both datasets show that body key points identified as important through SHAP have the largest influence on the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity metrics. Our findings highlight that SHAP can provide granular insights into the input feature contribution to the prediction outcome of GCNs in HAR tasks. This demonstrates the potential for more interpretable and trustworthy models in high-stakes applications like healthcare or rehabilitation.
In recent years, Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) have significantly changed the landscape of software engineering (SE) on downstream tasks, such as code generation, by making software development more efficient. Therefore, a growing interest has emerged in further evaluating these Language Models to homogenize the quality assessment of generated code. As the current evaluation process can significantly overreact on accuracy-based metrics, practitioners often seek methods to interpret LLM4Code outputs beyond canonical benchmarks. While the majority of research reports on code generation effectiveness in terms of expected ground truth, scant attention has been paid to LLMs' explanations. In essence, the decision-making process to generate code is hard to interpret. To bridge this evaluation gap, we introduce code rationales (Code$Q$), a technique with rigorous mathematical underpinning, to identify subsets of tokens that can explain individual code predictions. We conducted a thorough Exploratory Analysis to demonstrate the method's applicability and a User Study to understand the usability of code-based explanations. Our evaluation demonstrates that Code$Q$ is a powerful interpretability method to explain how (less) meaningful input concepts (i.e., natural language particle `at') highly impact output generation. Moreover, participants of this study highlighted Code$Q$'s ability to show a causal relationship between the input and output of the model with readable and informative explanations on code completion and test generation tasks. Additionally, Code$Q$ also helps to uncover model rationale, facilitating comparison with a human rationale to promote a fair level of trust and distrust in the model.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects 50 million people worldwide and is projected to overwhelm 152 million by 2050. AD is characterized by cognitive decline due partly to disruptions in metabolic brain connectivity. Thus, early and accurate detection of metabolic brain network impairments is crucial for AD management. Chief to identifying such impairments is FDG-PET data. Despite advancements, most graph-based studies using FDG-PET data rely on group-level analysis or thresholding. Yet, group-level analysis can veil individual differences and thresholding may overlook weaker but biologically critical brain connections. Additionally, machine learning-based AD prediction largely focuses on univariate outcomes, such as disease status. Here, we introduce explainable graph-theoretical machine learning (XGML), a framework employing kernel density estimation and dynamic time warping to construct individual metabolic brain graphs that capture the distance between pair-wise brain regions and identify subgraphs most predictive of multivariate AD-related outcomes. Using FDG-PET data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, XGML builds metabolic brain graphs and uncovers subgraphs predictive of eight AD-related cognitive scores in new subjects. XGML shows robust performance, particularly for predicting scores measuring learning, memory, language, praxis, and orientation, such as CDRSB ($r = 0.74$), ADAS11 ($r = 0.73$), and ADAS13 ($r = 0.71$). Moreover, XGML unveils key edges jointly but differentially predictive of several AD-related outcomes; they may serve as potential network biomarkers for assessing overall cognitive decline. Together, we show the promise of graph-theoretical machine learning in biomarker discovery and disease prediction and its potential to improve our understanding of network neural mechanisms underlying AD.
Visual reasoning is crucial for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to address complex chart queries, yet high-quality rationale data remains scarce. Existing methods leveraged (M)LLMs for data generation, but direct prompting often yields limited precision and diversity. In this paper, we propose \textit{Chain of Functions (CoF)}, a novel programmatic reasoning data generation pipeline that utilizes freely-explored reasoning paths as supervision to ensure data precision and diversity. Specifically, it starts with human-free exploration among the atomic functions (e.g., maximum data and arithmetic operations) to generate diverse function chains, which are then translated into linguistic rationales and questions with only a moderate open-sourced LLM. \textit{CoF} provides multiple benefits: 1) Precision: function-governed generation reduces hallucinations compared to freeform generation; 2) Diversity: enumerating function chains enables varied question taxonomies; 3) Explainability: function chains serve as built-in rationales, allowing fine-grained evaluation beyond overall accuracy; 4) Practicality: eliminating reliance on extremely large models. Employing \textit{CoF}, we construct the \textit{ChartCoF} dataset, with 1.4k complex reasoning Q\&A for fine-grained analysis and 50k Q\&A for reasoning enhancement. The fine-grained evaluation on \textit{ChartCoF} reveals varying performance across question taxonomies for each MLLM, and the experiments also show that finetuning with \textit{ChartCoF} achieves state-of-the-art performance among same-scale MLLMs on widely used benchmarks. Furthermore, the novel paradigm of function-governed rationale generation in \textit{CoF} could inspire broader applications beyond charts.
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are machine learning models that improve interpretability by grounding their predictions on human-understandable concepts, allowing for targeted interventions in their decision-making process. However, when intervened on, CBMs assume the availability of humans that can identify the need to intervene and always provide correct interventions. Both assumptions are unrealistic and impractical, considering labor costs and human error-proneness. In contrast, Learning to Defer (L2D) extends supervised learning by allowing machine learning models to identify cases where a human is more likely to be correct than the model, thus leading to deferring systems with improved performance. In this work, we gain inspiration from L2D and propose Deferring CBMs (DCBMs), a novel framework that allows CBMs to learn when an intervention is needed. To this end, we model DCBMs as a composition of deferring systems and derive a consistent L2D loss to train them. Moreover, by relying on a CBM architecture, DCBMs can explain why defer occurs on the final task. Our results show that DCBMs achieve high predictive performance and interpretability at the cost of deferring more to humans.
The design, operations, and management of water distribution systems (WDS) involve complex mathematical models. These models are continually improving due to computational advancements, leading to better decision-making and more efficient WDS management. However, the significant time and effort required for modeling, programming, and analyzing results remain substantial challenges. Another issue is the professional burden, which confines the interaction with models, databases, and other sophisticated tools to a small group of experts, thereby causing non-technical stakeholders to depend on these experts or make decisions without modeling support. Furthermore, explaining model results is challenging even for experts, as it is often unclear which conditions cause the model to reach a certain state or recommend a specific policy. The recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) open doors for a new stage in human-model interaction. This study proposes a framework of plain language interactions with hydraulic and water quality models based on LLM-EPANET architecture. This framework is tested with increasing levels of complexity of queries to study the ability of LLMs to interact with WDS models, run complex simulations, and report simulation results. The performance of the proposed framework is evaluated across several categories of queries and hyper-parameter configurations, demonstrating its potential to enhance decision-making processes in WDS management.
Malleable Glyph is a new visualization problem and a public challenge. It originated from UX research (namely from research on card sorting UX), but its applications can be diverse (UI, gaming, information presentation, maps, and others). Its essence is: carrying as much information in a defined planar and static area as possible. The information should allow human observers to evaluate a pair of glyphs into three possible sortings: the first is "greater", or the second is "greater", or both are equal. The glyphs should adhere to the Illiteracy Rule, in other words, the observer should ask themselves the question "how much?" rather than "how many?". This article motivates the technique, explains its details, and presents the public challenge, including the evaluation protocol. The article aims to call for ideas from other visualization and graphics researchers and practitioners and to invite everyone to participate in the challenge and, by doing so, move scientific knowledge forward.