Towards an Evaluation Framework for Explainable Artificial Intelligence Systems for Health and Well-being

The integration of Artificial Intelligence in the development of computer systems presents a new challenge: make intelligent systems explainable to humans. This is especially vital in the field of health and well-being, where transparency in decision support systems enables healthcare professionals to understand and trust automated decisions and predictions. To address this need, tools are required to guide the development of explainable AI systems. In this paper, we introduce an evaluation framework designed to support the development of explainable AI systems for health and well-being. Additionally, we present a case study that illustrates the application of the framework in practice. We believe that our framework can serve as a valuable tool not only for developing explainable AI systems in healthcare but also for any AI system that has a significant impact on individuals.

Meta-evaluating stability measures: MAX-Senstivity & AVG-Sensitivity

The use of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems has introduced a set of challenges that need resolution. The XAI robustness, or stability, has been one of the goals of the community from its beginning. Multiple authors have proposed evaluating this feature using objective evaluation measures. Nonetheless, many questions remain. With this work, we propose a novel approach to meta-evaluate these metrics, i.e. analyze the correctness of the evaluators. We propose two new tests that allowed us to evaluate two different stability measures: AVG-Sensitiviy and MAX-Senstivity. We tested their reliability in the presence of perfect and robust explanations, generated with a Decision Tree; as well as completely random explanations and prediction. The metrics results showed their incapacity of identify as erroneous the random explanations, highlighting their overall unreliability.

A comprehensive study on fidelity metrics for XAI

The use of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems has introduced a set of challenges that need resolution. Herein, we focus on how to correctly select an XAI method, an open questions within the field. The inherent difficulty of this task is due to the lack of a ground truth. Several authors have proposed metrics to approximate the fidelity of different XAI methods. These metrics lack verification and have concerning disagreements. In this study, we proposed a novel methodology to verify fidelity metrics, using a well-known transparent model, namely a decision tree. This model allowed us to obtain explanations with perfect fidelity. Our proposal constitutes the first objective benchmark for these metrics, facilitating a comparison of existing proposals, and surpassing existing methods. We applied our benchmark to assess the existing fidelity metrics in two different experiments, each using public datasets comprising 52,000 images. The images from these datasets had a size a 128 by 128 pixels and were synthetic data that simplified the training process. All metric values, indicated a lack of fidelity, with the best one showing a 30 \% deviation from the expected values for perfect explanation. Our experimentation led us to conclude that the current fidelity metrics are not reliable enough to be used in real scenarios. From this finding, we deemed it necessary to development new metrics, to avoid the detected problems, and we recommend the usage of our proposal as a benchmark within the scientific community to address these limitations.

A novel approach to generate datasets with XAI ground truth to evaluate image models

With the increased usage of artificial intelligence (AI), it is imperative to understand how these models work internally. These needs have led to the development of a new field called eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI). This field consists of on a set of techniques that allows us to theoretically determine the cause of the AI decisions. One unsolved question about XAI is how to measure the quality of explanations. In this study, we propose a new method to generate datasets with ground truth (GT). These datasets allow us to measure how faithful is a method without ad hoc solutions. We conducted a set of experiments that compared our GT with real model explanations and obtained excellent results confirming that our proposed method is correct.

Segmenting overlapped objects in images. A study to support the diagnosis of sickle cell disease

Overlapped objects are found on multiple kinds of images, they are a source of problem due its partial information. Multiple types of algorithm are used to address this problem from simple and naive methods to more complex ones. In this work we propose a new method for the segmentation of overlapped object. Finally we compare the results of this algorithm with the state-of-art in two experiments: one with a new dataset, developed specially for this work, and red blood smears from sickle-cell disease patients.