GraphXAIN: Narratives to Explain Graph Neural Networks

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are a powerful technique for machine learning on graph-structured data, yet they pose interpretability challenges, especially for non-expert users. Existing GNN explanation methods often yield technical outputs such as subgraphs and feature importance scores, which are not easily understood. Building on recent insights from social science and other Explainable AI (XAI) methods, we propose GraphXAIN, a natural language narrative that explains individual predictions made by GNNs. We present a model-agnostic and explainer-agnostic XAI approach that complements graph explainers by generating GraphXAINs, using Large Language Models (LLMs) and integrating graph data, individual predictions from GNNs, explanatory subgraphs, and feature importances. We define XAI Narratives and XAI Descriptions, highlighting their distinctions and emphasizing the importance of narrative principles in effective explanations. By incorporating natural language narratives, our approach supports graph practitioners and non-expert users, aligning with social science research on explainability and enhancing user understanding and trust in complex GNN models. We demonstrate GraphXAIN's capabilities on a real-world graph dataset, illustrating how its generated narratives can aid understanding compared to traditional graph explainer outputs or other descriptive explanation methods.

Exposing Image Classifier Shortcuts with Counterfactual Frequency (CoF) Tables

The rise of deep learning in image classification has brought unprecedented accuracy but also highlighted a key issue: the use of 'shortcuts' by models. Such shortcuts are easy-to-learn patterns from the training data that fail to generalise to new data. Examples include the use of a copyright watermark to recognise horses, snowy background to recognise huskies, or ink markings to detect malignant skin lesions. The explainable AI (XAI) community has suggested using instance-level explanations to detect shortcuts without external data, but this requires the examination of many explanations to confirm the presence of such shortcuts, making it a labour-intensive process. To address these challenges, we introduce Counterfactual Frequency (CoF) tables, a novel approach that aggregates instance-based explanations into global insights, and exposes shortcuts. The aggregation implies the need for some semantic concepts to be used in the explanations, which we solve by labelling the segments of an image. We demonstrate the utility of CoF tables across several datasets, revealing the shortcuts learned from them.

Beyond Accuracy-Fairness: Stop evaluating bias mitigation methods solely on between-group metrics

Artificial Intelligence (AI) finds widespread applications across various domains, sparking concerns about fairness in its deployment. While fairness in AI remains a central concern, the prevailing discourse often emphasizes outcome-based metrics without a nuanced consideration of the differential impacts within subgroups. Bias mitigation techniques do not only affect the ranking of pairs of instances across sensitive groups, but often also significantly affect the ranking of instances within these groups. Such changes are hard to explain and raise concerns regarding the validity of the intervention. Unfortunately, these effects largely remain under the radar in the accuracy-fairness evaluation framework that is usually applied. This paper challenges the prevailing metrics for assessing bias mitigation techniques, arguing that they do not take into account the changes within-groups and that the resulting prediction labels fall short of reflecting real-world scenarios. We propose a paradigm shift: initially, we should focus on generating the most precise ranking for each subgroup. Following this, individuals should be chosen from these rankings to meet both fairness standards and practical considerations.

Tell Me a Story! Narrative-Driven XAI with Large Language Models

In today's critical domains, the predominance of black-box machine learning models amplifies the demand for Explainable AI (XAI). The widely used SHAP values, while quantifying feature importance, are often too intricate and lack human-friendly explanations. Furthermore, counterfactual (CF) explanations present `what ifs' but leave users grappling with the 'why'. To bridge this gap, we introduce XAIstories. Leveraging Large Language Models, XAIstories provide narratives that shed light on AI predictions: SHAPstories do so based on SHAP explanations to explain a prediction score, while CFstories do so for CF explanations to explain a decision. Our results are striking: over 90% of the surveyed general audience finds the narrative generated by SHAPstories convincing. Data scientists primarily see the value of SHAPstories in communicating explanations to a general audience, with 92% of data scientists indicating that it will contribute to the ease and confidence of nonspecialists in understanding AI predictions. Additionally, 83% of data scientists indicate they are likely to use SHAPstories for this purpose. In image classification, CFstories are considered more or equally convincing as users own crafted stories by over 75% of lay user participants. CFstories also bring a tenfold speed gain in creating a narrative, and improves accuracy by over 20% compared to manually created narratives. The results thereby suggest that XAIstories may provide the missing link in truly explaining and understanding AI predictions.

Manipulation Risks in Explainable AI: The Implications of the Disagreement Problem

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used in high-stakes domains of our life, increasing the need to explain these decisions and to make sure that they are aligned with how we want the decision to be made. The field of Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged in response. However, it faces a significant challenge known as the disagreement problem, where multiple explanations are possible for the same AI decision or prediction. While the existence of the disagreement problem is acknowledged, the potential implications associated with this problem have not yet been widely studied. First, we provide an overview of the different strategies explanation providers could deploy to adapt the returned explanation to their benefit. We make a distinction between strategies that attack the machine learning model or underlying data to influence the explanations, and strategies that leverage the explanation phase directly. Next, we analyse several objectives and concrete scenarios the providers could have to engage in this behavior, and the potential dangerous consequences this manipulative behavior could have on society. We emphasize that it is crucial to investigate this issue now, before these methods are widely implemented, and propose some mitigation strategies.

Calculating and Visualizing Counterfactual Feature Importance Values

Despite the success of complex machine learning algorithms, mostly justified by an outstanding performance in prediction tasks, their inherent opaque nature still represents a challenge to their responsible application. Counterfactual explanations surged as one potential solution to explain individual decision results. However, two major drawbacks directly impact their usability: (1) the isonomic view of feature changes, in which it is not possible to observe \textit{how much} each modified feature influences the prediction, and (2) the lack of graphical resources to visualize the counterfactual explanation. We introduce Counterfactual Feature (change) Importance (CFI) values as a solution: a way of assigning an importance value to each feature change in a given counterfactual explanation. To calculate these values, we propose two potential CFI methods. One is simple, fast, and has a greedy nature. The other, coined CounterShapley, provides a way to calculate Shapley values between the factual-counterfactual pair. Using these importance values, we additionally introduce three chart types to visualize the counterfactual explanations: (a) the Greedy chart, which shows a greedy sequential path for prediction score increase up to predicted class change, (b) the CounterShapley chart, depicting its respective score in a simple and one-dimensional chart, and finally (c) the Constellation chart, which shows all possible combinations of feature changes, and their impact on the model's prediction score. For each of our proposed CFI methods and visualization schemes, we show how they can provide more information on counterfactual explanations. Finally, an open-source implementation is offered, compatible with any counterfactual explanation generator algorithm. Code repository at: https://github.com/ADMAntwerp/CounterPlots

Unveiling the Potential of Counterfactuals Explanations in Employability

In eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual explanations are known to give simple, short, and comprehensible justifications for complex model decisions. However, we are yet to see more applied studies in which they are applied in real-world cases. To fill this gap, this study focuses on showing how counterfactuals are applied to employability-related problems which involve complex machine learning algorithms. For these use cases, we use real data obtained from a public Belgian employment institution (VDAB). The use cases presented go beyond the mere application of counterfactuals as explanations, showing how they can enhance decision support, comply with legal requirements, guide controlled changes, and analyze novel insights.

Disagreement amongst counterfactual explanations: How transparency can be deceptive

Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used as an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique to provide stakeholders of complex machine learning algorithms with explanations for data-driven decisions. The popularity of counterfactual explanations resulted in a boom in the algorithms generating them. However, not every algorithm creates uniform explanations for the same instance. Even though in some contexts multiple possible explanations are beneficial, there are circumstances where diversity amongst counterfactual explanations results in a potential disagreement problem among stakeholders. Ethical issues arise when for example, malicious agents use this diversity to fairwash an unfair machine learning model by hiding sensitive features. As legislators worldwide tend to start including the right to explanations for data-driven, high-stakes decisions in their policies, these ethical issues should be understood and addressed. Our literature review on the disagreement problem in XAI reveals that this problem has never been empirically assessed for counterfactual explanations. Therefore, in this work, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis, on 40 datasets, using 12 explanation-generating methods, for two black-box models, yielding over 192.0000 explanations. Our study finds alarmingly high disagreement levels between the methods tested. A malicious user is able to both exclude and include desired features when multiple counterfactual explanations are available. This disagreement seems to be driven mainly by the dataset characteristics and the type of counterfactual algorithm. XAI centers on the transparency of algorithmic decision-making, but our analysis advocates for transparency about this self-proclaimed transparency

Explainable AI for Psychological Profiling from Digital Footprints: A Case Study of Big Five Personality Predictions from Spending Data

Every step we take in the digital world leaves behind a record of our behavior; a digital footprint. Research has suggested that algorithms can translate these digital footprints into accurate estimates of psychological characteristics, including personality traits, mental health or intelligence. The mechanisms by which AI generates these insights, however, often remain opaque. In this paper, we show how Explainable AI (XAI) can help domain experts and data subjects validate, question, and improve models that classify psychological traits from digital footprints. We elaborate on two popular XAI methods (rule extraction and counterfactual explanations) in the context of Big Five personality predictions (traits and facets) from financial transactions data (N = 6,408). First, we demonstrate how global rule extraction sheds light on the spending patterns identified by the model as most predictive for personality, and discuss how these rules can be used to explain, validate, and improve the model. Second, we implement local rule extraction to show that individuals are assigned to personality classes because of their unique financial behavior, and that there exists a positive link between the model's prediction confidence and the number of features that contributed to the prediction. Our experiments highlight the importance of both global and local XAI methods. By better understanding how predictive models work in general as well as how they derive an outcome for a particular person, XAI promotes accountability in a world in which AI impacts the lives of billions of people around the world.

A Framework and Benchmarking Study for Counterfactual Generating Methods on Tabular Data

Counterfactual explanations are viewed as an effective way to explain machine learning predictions. This interest is reflected by a relatively young literature with already dozens of algorithms aiming to generate such explanations. These algorithms are focused on finding how features can be modified to change the output classification. However, this rather general objective can be achieved in different ways, which brings about the need for a methodology to test and benchmark these algorithms. The contributions of this work are manifold: First, a large benchmarking study of 10 algorithmic approaches on 22 tabular datasets is performed, using 9 relevant evaluation metrics. Second, the introduction of a novel, first of its kind, framework to test counterfactual generation algorithms. Third, a set of objective metrics to evaluate and compare counterfactual results. And finally, insight from the benchmarking results that indicate which approaches obtain the best performance on what type of dataset. This benchmarking study and framework can help practitioners in determining which technique and building blocks most suit their context, and can help researchers in the design and evaluation of current and future counterfactual generation algorithms. Our findings show that, overall, there's no single best algorithm to generate counterfactual explanations as the performance highly depends on properties related to the dataset, model, score and factual point specificities.