Abstract--Adoption and deployment of robotic and autonomous systems in industry are currently hindered by the lack of transparency, required for safety and accountability. Methods for providing explanations are needed that are agnostic to the underlying autonomous system and easily updated. Furthermore, different stakeholders with varying levels of expertise, will require different levels of information. In this work, we use surrogate models to provide transparency as to the underlying policies for behaviour activation. We show that these surrogate models can effectively break down autonomous agents' behaviour into explainable components for use in natural language explanations.

In the realm of online privacy, privacy assistants play a pivotal role in empowering users to manage their privacy effectively. Although recent studies have shown promising progress in tackling tasks such as privacy violation detection and personalized privacy recommendations, a crucial aspect for widespread user adoption is the capability of these systems to provide explanations for their decision-making processes. This paper presents a privacy assistant for generating explanations for privacy decisions. The privacy assistant focuses on discovering latent topics, identifying explanation categories, establishing explanation schemes, and generating automated explanations. The generated explanations can be used by users to understand the recommendations of the privacy assistant. Our user study of real-world privacy dataset of images shows that users find the generated explanations useful and easy to understand. Additionally, the generated explanations can be used by privacy assistants themselves to improve their decision-making. We show how this can be realized by incorporating the generated explanations into a state-of-the-art privacy assistant.

From a more practical point of view, recent studies [Pawelczyk et al., 2022] show that the prescribed counterfactual recourses are often not implemented exactly by individuals and demonstrate that most state-of-the-art CE algorithms are very likely to fail in this noisy environment. To address these issues, we propose a probabilistic framework that gives a sparse local counterfactual rule for each observation, providing rules that give a range of values capable of changing decisions with high probability. These rules serve as a summary of diverse counterfactual explanations and yield robust recourses. We further aggregate these local rules into a regional counterfactual rule, identifying shared recourses for subgroups of the data. Our local and regional rules are derived from the Random Forest algorithm, which offers statistical guarantees and fidelity to data distribution by selecting recourses in high-density regions. Moreover, our rules are sparse as we first select the smallest set of variables having a high probability of changing the decision. We have conducted experiments to validate the effectiveness of our counterfactual rules in comparison to standard CE and recent similar attempts. Our methods are available as a Python package.

Interpretable machine learning seeks to understand the reasoning process of complex black-box systems that are long notorious for lack of explainability. One flourishing approach is through counterfactual explanations, which provide suggestions on what a user can do to alter an outcome. Not only must a counterfactual example counter the original prediction from the black-box classifier but it should also satisfy various constraints for practical applications. Diversity is one of the critical constraints that however remains less discussed. While diverse counterfactuals are ideal, it is computationally challenging to simultaneously address some other constraints. Furthermore, there is a growing privacy concern over the released counterfactual data. To this end, we propose a feature-based learning framework that effectively handles the counterfactual constraints and contributes itself to the limited pool of private explanation models. We demonstrate the flexibility and effectiveness of our method in generating diverse counterfactuals of actionability and plausibility. Our counterfactual engine is more efficient than counterparts of the same capacity while yielding the lowest re-identification risks.

Counterfactual reasoning -- envisioning hypothetical scenarios, or possible worlds, where some circumstances are different from what (f)actually occurred (counter-to-fact) -- is ubiquitous in human cognition. Conventionally, counterfactually-altered circumstances have been treated as "small miracles" that locally violate the laws of nature while sharing the same initial conditions. In Pearl's structural causal model (SCM) framework this is made mathematically rigorous via interventions that modify the causal laws while the values of exogenous variables are shared. In recent years, however, this purely interventionist account of counterfactuals has increasingly come under scrutiny from both philosophers and psychologists. Instead, they suggest a backtracking account of counterfactuals, according to which the causal laws remain unchanged in the counterfactual world; differences to the factual world are instead "backtracked" to altered initial conditions (exogenous variables). In the present work, we explore and formalise this alternative mode of counterfactual reasoning within the SCM framework. Despite ample evidence that humans backtrack, the present work constitutes, to the best of our knowledge, the first general account and algorithmisation of backtracking counterfactuals. We discuss our backtracking semantics in the context of related literature and draw connections to recent developments in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).

In light of the growing popularity of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), understanding the underlying causes of the knowledge acquired by EDA is crucial. However, it remains under-researched. This study promotes a transparent and explicable perspective on data analysis, called eXplainable Data Analysis (XDA). For this reason, we present XInsight, a general framework for XDA. XInsight provides data analysis with qualitative and quantitative explanations of causal and non-causal semantics. This way, it will significantly improve human understanding and confidence in the outcomes of data analysis, facilitating accurate data interpretation and decision making in the real world. XInsight is a three-module, end-to-end pipeline designed to extract causal graphs, translate causal primitives into XDA semantics, and quantify the quantitative contribution of each explanation to a data fact. XInsight uses a set of design concepts and optimizations to address the inherent difficulties associated with integrating causality into XDA. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets as well as a user study demonstrate the highly promising capabilities of XInsight.

Many high-performing machine learning models are not interpretable. As they are increasingly used in decision scenarios that can critically affect individuals, it is necessary to develop tools to better understand their outputs. Popular explanation methods include contrastive explanations. However, they suffer several shortcomings, among others an insufficient incorporation of background knowledge, and a lack of interactivity. While (dialogue-like) interactivity is important to better communicate an explanation, background knowledge has the potential to significantly improve their quality, e.g., by adapting the explanation to the needs of the end-user. To close this gap, we present REASONX, an explanation tool based on Constraint Logic Programming (CLP). REASONX provides interactive contrastive explanations that can be augmented by background knowledge, and allows to operate under a setting of under-specified information, leading to increased flexibility in the provided explanations. REASONX computes factual and constrative decision rules, as well as closest constrative examples. It provides explanations for decision trees, which can be the ML models under analysis, or global/local surrogate models of any ML model. While the core part of REASONX is built on CLP, we also provide a program layer that allows to compute the explanations via Python, making the tool accessible to a wider audience. We illustrate the capability of REASONX on a synthetic data set, and on a a well-developed example in the credit domain. In both cases, we can show how REASONX can be flexibly used and tailored to the needs of the user.

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been widely used to help explain and understand the output of deep learning models in fields such as image classification and Natural Language Processing. Interest in using XAI techniques to explain deep learning-based automatic speech recognition (ASR) is emerging. but there is not enough evidence on whether these explanations can be trusted. To address this, we adapt a state-of-the-art XAI technique from the image classification domain, Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), to a model trained for a TIMIT-based phoneme recognition task. This simple task provides a controlled setting for evaluation while also providing expert annotated ground truth to assess the quality of explanations. We find a variant of LIME based on time partitioned audio segments, that we propose in this paper, produces the most reliable explanations, containing the ground truth 96% of the time in its top three audio segments.

Counterfactual explanations have been argued to be one of the most intuitive forms of explanation. They are typically defined as a minimal set of edits on a given data sample that, when applied, changes the output of a model on that sample. However, a minimal set of edits is not always clear and understandable to an end-user, as it could, for instance, constitute an adversarial example (which is indistinguishable from the original data sample to an end-user). Instead, there are recent ideas that the notion of minimality in the context of counterfactuals should refer to the semantics of the data sample, and not to the feature space. In this work, we build on these ideas, and propose a framework that provides counterfactual explanations in terms of knowledge graphs. We provide an algorithm for computing such explanations (given some assumptions about the underlying knowledge), and quantitatively evaluate the framework with a user study.

Cryptocurrency forensics became standard tools for law enforcement. Their basic idea is to deanonymise cryptocurrency transactions to identify the people behind them. Cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques are often based on premises that largely remain implicit, especially in legal practice. On the one hand, this implicitness complicates investigations. On the other hand, it can have far-reaching consequences for the rights of those affected. Argumentation schemes could remedy this untenable situation by rendering underlying premises transparent. Additionally, they can aid in critically evaluating the probative value of any results obtained by cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques. In the argumentation theory and AI community, argumentation schemes are influential as they state implicit premises for different types of arguments. Through their critical questions, they aid the argumentation participants in critically evaluating arguments. We specialise the notion of argumentation schemes to legal reasoning about cryptocurrency deanonymisation. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of the resulting schemes through an exemplary real-world case. Ultimately, we envision that using our schemes in legal practice can solidify the evidential value of blockchain investigations as well as uncover and help address uncertainty in underlying premises - thus contributing to protect the rights of those affected by cryptocurrency forensics.