Salmonn Talebi

2papers

2 Papers

26.8CYMar 11
Beyond Explainable AI (XAI): An Overdue Paradigm Shift and Post-XAI Research Directions

Saleh Afroogh, Seyd Ishtiaque Ahmed, Petra Ahrweiler et al. · cmu

This study provides a cross-disciplinary examination of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches-focusing on deep neural networks (DNNs) and large language models (LLMs)-and identifies empirical and conceptual limitations in current XAI. We discuss critical symptoms that stem from deeper root causes (i.e., two paradoxes, two conceptual confusions, and five false assumptions). These fundamental problems within the current XAI research field reveal three insights: experimentally, XAI exhibits significant flaws; conceptually, it is paradoxical; and pragmatically, further attempts to reform the paradoxical XAI might exacerbate its confusion-demanding fundamental shifts and new research directions. To move beyond XAI's limitations, we propose a four-pronged synthesized paradigm shift toward reliable and certified AI development. These four components include: verification-focused Interactive AI (IAI) to establish scientific community protocols for certifying AI system performance rather than attempting post-hoc explanations, AI Epistemology for rigorous scientific foundations, User-Sensible AI to create context-aware systems tailored to specific user communities, and Model-Centered Interpretability for faithful technical analysis-together offering comprehensive post-XAI research directions.

AIJun 28, 2023
Beyond the Hype: Assessing the Performance, Trustworthiness, and Clinical Suitability of GPT3.5

Salmonn Talebi, Elizabeth Tong, Mohammad R. K. Mofrad

The use of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare is gaining popularity, but their practicality and safety in clinical settings have not been thoroughly assessed. In high-stakes environments like medical settings, trust and safety are critical issues for LLMs. To address these concerns, we present an approach to evaluate the performance and trustworthiness of a GPT3.5 model for medical image protocol assignment. We compare it with a fine-tuned BERT model and a radiologist. In addition, we have a radiologist review the GPT3.5 output to evaluate its decision-making process. Our evaluation dataset consists of 4,700 physician entries across 11 imaging protocol classes spanning the entire head. Our findings suggest that the GPT3.5 performance falls behind BERT and a radiologist. However, GPT3.5 outperforms BERT in its ability to explain its decision, detect relevant word indicators, and model calibration. Furthermore, by analyzing the explanations of GPT3.5 for misclassifications, we reveal systematic errors that need to be resolved to enhance its safety and suitability for clinical use.