Xai

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) in medical imaging aim to improve model interpretability by predicting intermediate clinical concepts before final diagnoses. However, most existing CBMs treat concepts as discriminative predictors of pathology labels, without explicitly modelling the underlying clinical generative process where diseases produce observable radiographic findings. We propose XpertCausal, a radiologist-guided causal CBM for chest X-ray interpretation which models pathology-to-concept relationships using a probabilistic noisy-OR framework. This generative model is then inverted via Bayesian inference to estimate pathology probabilities from predicted concepts. Radiologist-curated concept-pathology associations are used to constrain model structure to radiologist-defined clinically plausible reasoning pathways. We evaluate XpertCausal on MIMIC-CXR across pathology classification performance, calibration, explanation quality, and alignment with radiologist-defined reasoning pathways. Compared with both a non-causal CBM baseline and a causal ablation with unconstrained learned associations, XpertCausal achieves improved AUROC, calibration, and clinically relevant explanation quality, while learning concept-pathology relationships that more closely align with expert knowledge. These results demonstrate that incorporating clinically motivated causal structure and expert domain knowledge into CBMs can lead to more accurate, interpretable, and clinically aligned models for CXR interpretation.

The misuse of generative AI in online disinformation campaigns highlights the urgent need for transparent and explainable detection systems. In this work, we investigate how detectors for AI-generated images can be more effective in providing human-understandable explanations for their predictions. To this end, we develop a suite of detectors with various architectures and fine-tuning strategies, trained on our large-scale photorealistic fake image dataset, AIText2Image, and assess their performance on state-of-the-art text-to-image AI generators. We integrate 16 different explainable AI (XAI) methods into our detection framework, and the visual explanations are comprehensively refined and evaluated through a novel approach that prioritizes human understanding of AI-generated images, using both textual and visual responses collected from a survey of 100 participants. This framework offers insights into visual-language cues in fake image detection and into the clarity of XAI methods from a human perspective, measuring the alignment of XAI outputs with human preferences.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.

Spectral-based machine learning models have been increasingly deployed in chemometrics and spectroscopy, where predictive accuracy is as important as explainability. Current employed eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are largely adapted from tabular or generic multivariate domains, assigning relevance to isolated spectral variables rather than to the chemically meaningful spectral zones. Widely adopted tools such as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), Permutation Feature Importance (PFI), and Variable Importance in Projection scores (VIP) were not designed for the physical continuity and high collinearity of spectral data, and their variable-level outputs require post-hoc aggregation to recover zone-level information. This study introduces the Spectral Model eXplainer (SMX), a post-hoc, global, model-agnostic XAI framework that explains spectral classifiers through expert-informed spectral zones. SMX summarizes each zone via PCA, defines quantile-based logical predicates, estimates predicate relevance with perturbation in stochastic subsamples, and aggregates bag-wise rankings in a directed weighted graph summarized by Local Reaching Centrality. A key component is threshold spectrum reconstruction, which back-projects predicate boundaries to the original spectral domain in natural measurement units, enabling direct visual comparison with measured spectra. The method was evaluated on eight real spectral datasets (six based on X-ray Fluorescence--XRF and two based on Gamma-ray Spectrometry) and one synthetic benchmark with known gr

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.

In recent years, the integration of multimodal machine learning in wellbeing assessment has offered transformative potential for monitoring mental health. However, with the rapid advancement of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), their deployment in clinical settings has raised concerns due to their lack of transparency and potential for bias. While previous research has explored the intersection of fairness and Explainable AI (XAI), its application to VLMs for wellbeing assessment and depression prediction remains under-explored. This work investigates VLM performance across laboratory (AFAR-BSFT) and naturalistic (E-DAIC) datasets, focusing on diagnostic reliability and demographic fairness. Performance varied substantially across environments and architectures; Phi3.5-Vision achieved 80.4% accuracy on E-DAIC, while Qwen2-VL struggled at 33.9%. Additionally, both models demonstrated a tendency to over-predict depression on AFAR-BSFT. Although bias existed across both architectures, Qwen2-VL showed higher gender disparities, while Phi-3.5-Vision exhibited more racial bias. Our XAI intervention framework yielded mixed results; fairness prompting achieved perfect equal opportunity for Qwen2-VL at a severe accuracy cost on E-DAIC. On AFAR-BSFT, explainability-based interventions improved procedural consistency but did not guarantee outcome fairness, sometimes amplifying racial bias. These results highlight a persistent gap between procedural transparency and equitable outcomes. We analyse these findings and consolidate concrete recommendations for addressing them, emphasising that future fairness interventions must jointly optimise predictive accuracy, demographic parity, and cross-domain generalisation.

Grading knee osteoarthritis (KOA) on plain radiographs is poorly reproducible across readers. A single-grade disagreement on the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) scale can alter surgical management or redirect a patient from conservative therapy to intra-articular injection. Meanwhile, deep learning models that outperform human readers often offer no explanation for their decisions. We present Knee-xRAI, a pipeline that decomposes the grading process by mimicking clinical radiological workflows. It independently measures joint space narrowing (JSN), osteophytes, and subchondral sclerosis, then combines these findings into an explainable KL grade. Specifically, a U-Net++ architecture quantifies JSN via contour segmentation, an SE-ResNet-50 multi-task network grades osteophytes per anatomical site on the OARSI scale, and a hybrid texture-CNN detects binary sclerosis. This pipeline yields a 50-dimensional feature vector evaluated via an XGBoost-SHAP classifier (Path A, audit) and a ConvNeXt hybrid predictor (Path B, deployed). On 8,260 OAI-derived radiographs, the JSN module achieved a Dice score of 0.8909 and an mJSW ICC of 0.8674. Path A reached a QWK of 0.6294 and an AUC of 0.8046, confirming the structured feature vector carries substantial diagnostic signal. Path B achieved a QWK of 0.8436 and an AUC of 0.9017. SHAP analysis identifies JSN as the dominant feature, with osteophytes adding a consistent increment and sclerosis contributing marginally. Removing JSN evidence collapses KL3-KL4 recall while early grades remain intact, aligning with the KL diagnostic criteria. Knee-xRAI grounds every prediction in an auditable chain of measured radiographic findings, providing clinical transparency at the point of care.

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

Automatic bacterial colony counting is a highly sought-after technology in modern biological laboratories because it eliminates manual counting effort. Previous work has observed that MicrobiaNet, currently the best-performing cardinality classification model for colony counting, has difficulty distinguishing colonies of three or more individuals. However, it is unclear if this is due to properties of the data together with inherent characteristics of the MicrobiaNet model. By analysing MicrobiaNet with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), we demonstrate that XAI can provide insights into how data properties constrain cardinality classification performance in colony counting. Our results show that high visual similarity across classes is the key issue hindering further performance improvement, revising prior assertions about MicrobiaNet. These findings suggest future work should focus on models that explicitly incorporate visual similarity or explore density estimation approaches, with broader implications for neural network classifiers trained on imbalanced datasets.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) effectively integrate text and audio to interpret context in complex interactive dialogues. However, the internal mechanisms by which heterogeneous modalities influence model behavior remain opaque. While Shapley Values (SV) provide a robust, model-agnostic framework for local explainability in text-based NLP, their extension to multimodal data is hindered by cross-channel dependencies, intricate dialogue structures, and the prohibitive computational complexity of dense audio representations. In this work, we formalize a multimodal extension of the Shapley Value framework, treating discrete text tokens and aligned audio segments as cooperative features. To ensure computational feasibility, we deploy a suite of efficient estimation strategies: exact SV computation for low-dimensional inputs and sampling-based approximations - including Monte Carlo permutations and stratified sampling with Neyman-optimal allocation - to minimize variance under constrained computational budgets. To resolve the granularity mismatch between modalities, we propose Spectrogram-Guided Phonetic Alignment (SGPA), a novel preprocessing method that maps high-frequency audio streams to interpretable, word-aligned segments. Our contribution is twofold: first, we provide an open-source, model-agnostic Python package and a companion GUI for the computation and interactive visualization of multimodal attributions. Second, we evaluate our framework using curated subsets of the VoiceBench and Infinity Instruct datasets across diverse multilingual scenarios. Our experimental results reveal that input modality is a primary driver of attribution volatility and demonstrate that standard syntactic importance proxies often fail to predict model attention in multimodal, cross-lingual contexts.

Explaining Machine Learning (ML) results in a transparent and user-friendly manner remains a challenging task of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we present a method to enhance the interpretability of ML models by using a Knowledge Graph (KG). We store domain-specific data along with ML results and their corresponding explanations, establishing a structured connection between domain knowledge and ML insights. To make these insights accessible to users, we designed a selective retrieval method in which relevant triplets are extracted from the KG and processed by a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate user-friendly explanations of ML results. We evaluated our method in a manufacturing environment using the XAI Question Bank. Beyond standard questions, we introduce more complex, tailored questions that highlight the strengths of our approach. We evaluated 33 questions, analyzing responses using quantitative metrics such as accuracy and consistency, as well as qualitative ones such as clarity and usefulness. Our contribution is both theoretical and practical: from a theoretical perspective, we present a novel approach for effectively enabling LLMs to dynamically access a KG in order to improve the explainability of ML results. From a practical perspective, we provide empirical evidence showing that such explanations can be successfully applied in real-world manufacturing environments, supporting better decision-making in manufacturing processes.

For head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, prognostic outcome prediction can support personalized treatment strategy selection. Improving prediction performance of HNC outcomes has been extensively explored by using advanced artificial intelligence (AI) techniques on PET/CT data. However, the interpretability of AI remains a critical obstacle for its clinical adoption. Unlike previous HNC studies that empirically selected explainable AI (XAI) techniques, we are the first to comprehensively evaluate and rank 13 XAI methods across 24 metrics, covering faithfulness, robustness, complexity and plausibility. Experimental results on the multi-center HECKTOR challenge dataset show large variations across evaluation aspects among different XAI methods, with Integrated Gradients (IG) and DeepLIFT (DL) consistently obtained high rankings for faithfulness, complexity and plausibility. This work highlights the importance of comprehensive XAI method evaluation and can be extended to other medical imaging tasks.

For around a decade, non-symbolic methods have been the option of choice when explaining complex machine learning (ML) models. Unfortunately, such methods lack rigor and can mislead human decision-makers. In high-stakes uses of ML, the lack of rigor is especially problematic. One prime example of provable lack of rigor is the adoption of Shapley values in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), with the tool SHAP being a ubiquitous example. This paper overviews the ongoing efforts towards using rigorous symbolic methods of XAI as an alternative to non-rigorous non-symbolic approaches, concretely for assigning relative feature importance.

As companies enter the race for agentic AI adoption, fears surface around agentic autonomy and its subsequent risks. These fears compound as companies scale their agentic AI adoption with low-code applications, without a comparable scaling in their governance processes and expertise resulting in a phenomenon known as "Agent Sprawl". While shadow AI tools can help with agentic discovery and identification, few observability tools offer insights into the agents' configuration and settings or the decision-making process during agent-to-agent communication and orchestration. This paper explores AI governance professionals' concerns in enterprise settings, while offering design-time and runtime explainability techniques as suggested by AI governance experts for addressing those fears. Finally, we provide a preliminary prototype of an Agentic AI Card that can help companies feel at ease deploying agents at scale.

Medical image segmentation (MIS) is a fundamental component of computer-assisted diagnosis and clinical decision support. Over the past decade, numerous architectures specifically tailored to medical imaging have emerged to address domain-specific challenges such as low contrast, small anatomical structures, and limited annotated data. In parallel, rapid progress in computer vision has produced highly capable general-purpose vision models (GP-VMs) originally designed for natural images. Despite their strong performance on standard vision benchmarks, their effectiveness for MIS remains insufficiently understood. In this controlled empirical study, we examine whether specialized medical segmentation architectures (SMAs) provide systematic advantages over modern GP-VMs for 2D MIS. We compare eleven SMAs and GP-VMs using a unified training and evaluation protocol across three heterogeneous datasets, each covering different 2D imaging modalities, class structures, and data characteristics. Beyond segmentation performance, we employ linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) for statistical assessment and qualitative Grad-CAM visualizations to investigate explainability (XAI)-related model behavior. Our results imply that, for the analyzed settings, GP-VMs achieve performance comparable to that of specialized MIS models. Moreover, XAI analyses indicate that GP-VMs are capable of identifying clinically relevant structures despite the absence of explicit domain-specific architectural priors. These findings suggest that GP-VMs can represent a viable alternative to domain-specific methods for 2D MIS, highlighting the importance of informed model selection. All code and resources are available at GitHub.

Chest X-ray (CXR) plays a pivotal role in clinical diagnosis, and a variety of task-specific and foundation models have been developed for automatic CXR interpretation. However, these models often struggle to adapt to new diagnostic tasks and complex reasoning scenarios. Recently, LLM-based agent models have emerged as a promising paradigm for CXR analysis, enhancing model's capability through tool coordination, multi-step reasoning, and team collaboration, etc. However, existing agents often rely on a single diagnostic pipeline and lack mechanisms for assessing tools' reliability, limiting their adaptability and credibility. To this end, we propose CXRAgent, a director-orchestrated, multi-stage agent for CXR interpretation, where a central director coordinates the following stages: (1) Tool Invocation: The agent strategically orchestrates a set of CXR-analysis tools, with outputs normalized and verified by the Evidence-driven Validator (EDV), which grounds diagnostic outputs with visual evidence to support reliable downstream diagnosis; (2) Diagnostic Planning: Guided by task requirements and intermediate findings, the agent formulates a targeted diagnostic plan. It then assembles an expert team accordingly, defining member roles and coordinating their interactions to enable adaptive and collaborative reasoning; (3) Collaborative Decision-making: The agent integrates insights from the expert team with accumulated contextual memories, synthesizing them into an evidence-backed diagnostic conclusion. Experiments on various CXR interpretation tasks show that CXRAgent delivers strong performance, providing visual evidence and generalizes well to clinical tasks of different complexity. Code and data are valuable at this \href{https://github.com/laojiahuo2003/CXRAgent/}{link}.

Biophysical diffusion MRI models like Neurite Exchange Imaging (NEXI) are essential for probing gray matter microstructure, estimating compartment diffusivities, neurite fraction, and exchange time. However, NEXI's multi-shell, multi-diffusion-time requirements cause prohibitively long acquisitions. Leveraging the Connectome 2.0 ultra-high gradient scanner, we developed a time-efficient protocol using an Explainable AI (XAI) framework. Combining XGBoost, SHAP, and Recursive Feature Elimination trained on synthetic signals, XAI identified an optimal 8-feature subset, cutting scan time from 27 to 14 minutes. Validated in vivo in seven healthy participants, the XAI protocol was benchmarked against the full 15-feature acquisition, a Cram'er-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) theoretical optimum, and two heuristics ("Mid-Range" and "Corner"). It robustly reproduced parameter estimates and maintained test-retest reproducibility. Remarkably, the XAI selection converged to the CRLB optimum. This validates XAI's optimality while highlighting its main advantage: achieving gold-standard optimization without complex analytical Jacobians, making it easily adaptable to numerical models or complex noise where CRLB is intractable. Furthermore, XAI showed superior in vivo robustness over heuristics: "Mid-Range" sampling yielded biased exchange time estimates from insufficient temporal diversity, while "Corner" sampling gave unstable intra-neurite diffusivity estimates (5-fold higher CV) due to noise sensitivity. Ultimately, this robust 14-minute protocol accelerates exchange-sensitive microstructural mapping, establishing a model-agnostic optimization framework adaptable to future ultra-high gradient systems and existing clinical scanners.

While eXplainable AI (XAI) has advanced significantly, few methods address interpretability in embedded vector spaces where dimensions represent complex abstractions. We introduce Distance Explainer, a novel method for generating local, post-hoc explanations of embedded spaces in machine learning models. Our approach adapts saliency-based techniques from RISE to explain the distance between two embedded data points by assigning attribution values through selective masking and distance-ranked mask filtering. We evaluate Distance Explainer on cross-modal embeddings (image-image and image-caption pairs) using established XAI metrics including Faithfulness, Sensitivity/Robustness, and Randomization. Experiments with ImageNet and CLIP models demonstrate that our method effectively identifies features contributing to similarity or dissimilarity between embedded data points while maintaining high robustness and consistency. We also explore how parameter tuning, particularly mask quantity and selection strategy, affects explanation quality. This work addresses a critical gap in XAI research and enhances transparency and trustworthiness in deep learning applications utilizing embedded spaces.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act. In this context, the black-box nature of machine learning models limits the use of conventional avenues of approach towards certifying complex technical systems. As a potential solution, methods to give insights into this black-box - devised in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI) - could be used. In this study, the potential and shortcomings of such methods for the purpose of safe AI development and certification are discussed in 15 qualitative interviews with experts out of the areas of (X)AI and certification. We find that XAI methods can be a helpful asset for safe AI development, as they can show biases and failures of ML-models, but since certification relies on comprehensive and correct information about technical systems, their impact is expected to be limited.