Building upon Miller's framework of explanations derived from research in multiple

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is concerned with producing explanations indicating the inner workings of models. For a Rashomon set of similarly performing models, explanations provide a way of disambiguating the behavior of individual models, helping select models for deployment. However explanations themselves can vary depending on the explainer used, and need to be evaluated. In the paper "Evaluating Model Explanations without Ground Truth", we proposed three principles of explanation evaluation and a new method "AXE" to evaluate the quality of feature-importance explanations. We go on to illustrate how evaluation metrics that rely on comparing model explanations against ideal ground truth explanations obscure behavioral differences within a Rashomon set. Explanation evaluation aligned with our proposed principles would highlight these differences instead, helping select models from the Rashomon set. The selection of alternate models from the Rashomon set can maintain identical predictions but mislead explainers into generating false explanations, and mislead evaluation methods into considering the false explanations to be of high quality. AXE, our proposed explanation evaluation method, can detect this adversarial fairwashing of explanations with a 100% success rate. Unlike prior explanation evaluation strategies such as those based on model sensitivity or ground truth comparison, AXE can determine when protected attributes are used to make predictions.

Rapidly developing such mental models is especially critical in ad hoc human-machine teaming, where agents do not have a priori knowledge of others' decision-making strategies.

Input gradients have a pivotal role in a variety of applications, including adversarial attack algorithms for evaluating model robustness, explainable AI techniques for generating saliency maps, and counterfactual explanations. However, saliency maps generated by traditional neural networks are often noisy and provide limited insights. In this paper, we demonstrate that, on the contrary, the saliency maps of 1-Lipschitz neural networks, learnt with the dual loss of an optimal transportation problem, exhibit desirable XAI properties:They are highly concentrated on the essential parts of the image with low noise, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art explanation approaches across various models and metrics. We also prove that these maps align unprecedentedly well with human explanations on ImageNet. To explain the particularly beneficial properties of the saliency map for such models, we prove this gradient encodes both the direction of the transportation plan and the direction towards the nearest adversarial attack. Following the gradient down to the decision boundary is no longer considered an adversarial attack, but rather a counterfactual explanation that explicitly transports the input from one class to another.

We propose a post hoc saliency-based explanation framework for counterfactual reasoning in probabilistic multivariate time-series forecasting (regression) settings. Building upon Miller's framework of explanations derived from research in multiple social science disciplines, we establish a conceptual link between counterfactual reasoning and saliency-based explanation techniques. To address the lack of a principled notion of saliency, we leverage a unifying definition of information-theoretic saliency grounded in preattentive human visual cognition and extend it to forecasting settings. Specifically, we obtain a closed-form expression for commonly used density functions to identify which observed timesteps appear salient to an underlying model in making its probabilistic forecasts. We empirically validate our framework in a principled manner using synthetic data to establish ground-truth saliency that is unavailable for real-world data. Finally, using real-world data and forecasting models, we demonstrate how our framework can assist domain experts in forming new data-driven hypotheses about the causal relationships between features in the wild.

Counterfactual explanations promote explainability in machine learning models by answering the question "how should the input instance be altered to obtain a desired predicted label?. The comparison of this instance before and after perturbation can enhance human interpretation. Most existing studies on counterfactual explanations are limited in tabular data or image data. In this paper, we study the problem of counterfactual explanation generation on graphs. A few studies have explored to generate counterfactual explanations on graphs, but many challenges of this problem are still not well-addressed: 1) optimizing in the discrete and disorganized space of graphs; 2) generalizing on unseen graphs; 3) maintaining the causality in the generated counterfactuals without prior knowledge of the causal model. To tackle these challenges, we propose a novel framework CLEAR which aims to generate counterfactual explanations on graphs for graph-level prediction models. Specifically, CLEAR leverages a graph variational autoencoder based mechanism to facilitate its optimization and generalization, and promotes causality by leveraging an auxiliary variable to better identify the causal model.

We present an approach for generating natural language explanations of high-level behavior of autonomous agents navigating in partially-revealed environments. Our counterfactual explanations communicate changes to interpratable statistics of the belief (e.g., the likelihood an exploratory action will reach the unseen goal) that are estimated from visual input via a deep neural network and used (via a Bellman equation variant) to inform planning far into the future. Additionally, our novel training procedure mimics explanation generation, allowing us to use planning performance as an objective measure of explanation quality. Simulated experiments validate that our explanations are both high quality and can be used in interventions to directly correct bad behavior; agents trained via our training-by-explaining procedure achieve 9.1% lower average cost than a non-learned baseline (12.7% after interventions) in environments derived from real-world floor plans.