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.

In the wake of responsible AI, interpretability methods, which attempt to provide an explanation for the predictions of neural models have seen rapid progress. In this work, we are concerned with explanations that are applicable to natural language processing (NLP) models and tasks, and we focus specifically on the analysis of counterfactual, contrastive explanations. We note that while there have been several explainers proposed to produce counterfactual explanations, their behaviour can vary significantly and the lack of a universal ground truth for the counterfactual edits imposes an insuperable barrier on their evaluation. We propose a new back translation-inspired evaluation methodology that utilises earlier outputs of the explainer as ground truth proxies to investigate the consistency of explainers. We show that by iteratively feeding the counterfactual to the explainer we can obtain valuable insights into the behaviour of both the predictor and the explainer models, and infer patterns that would be otherwise obscured. Using this methodology, we conduct a thorough analysis and propose a novel metric to evaluate the consistency of counterfactual generation approaches with different characteristics across available performance indicators.

Neural network models that can handle inputs of variable lengths are powerful, but often hard to interpret. The lack of transparency hinders their adoption in many domains. Explanation techniques are essential for improving transparency. However, existing model-agnostic general explanation techniques do not consider the variable lengths of input data points, which limits their effectiveness. To address this limitation, we propose ReX, a general framework for adapting various explanation techniques to models that process variable-length inputs, expanding explanation coverage to data points of different lengths. Our approach adds temporal information to the explanations generated by existing techniques without altering their core algorithms. We instantiate our approach on two popular explanation techniques: LIME and Anchors. To evaluate the effectiveness of ReX, we apply our approach to three models in two different tasks. Our evaluation results demonstrate that our approach significantly improves the fidelity and understandability of explanations.

Smart home environments are designed to provide services that help improve the quality of life for the occupant via a variety of sensors and actuators installed throughout the space. Many automated actions taken by a smart home are governed by the output of an underlying activity recognition system. However, activity recognition systems may not be perfectly accurate and therefore inconsistencies in smart home operations can lead users reliant on smart home predictions to wonder "why did the smart home do that?" In this work, we build on insights from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques and introduce an explainable activity recognition framework in which we leverage leading XAI methods to generate natural language explanations that explain what about an activity led to the given classification. Within the context of remote caregiver monitoring, we perform a two-step evaluation: (a) utilize ML experts to assess the sensibility of explanations, and (b) recruit non-experts in two user remote caregiver monitoring scenarios, synchronous and asynchronous, to assess the effectiveness of explanations generated via our framework. Our results show that the XAI approach, SHAP, has a 92% success rate in generating sensible explanations. Moreover, in 83% of sampled scenarios users preferred natural language explanations over a simple activity label, underscoring the need for explainable activity recognition systems. Finally, we show that explanations generated by some XAI methods can lead users to lose confidence in the accuracy of the underlying activity recognition model. We make a recommendation regarding which existing XAI method leads to the best performance in the domain of smart home automation, and discuss a range of topics for future work to further improve explainable activity recognition.

Significant attention has been paid to enhancing recommender systems (RS) with explanation facilities to help users make informed decisions and increase trust in and satisfaction with the RS. Justification and transparency represent two crucial goals in explainable recommendation. Different from transparency, which faithfully exposes the reasoning behind the recommendation mechanism, justification conveys a conceptual model that may differ from that of the underlying algorithm. An explanation is an answer to a question. In explainable recommendation, a user would want to ask questions (referred to as intelligibility types) to understand results given by the RS. In this paper, we identify relationships between Why and How explanation intelligibility types and the explanation goals of justification and transparency. We followed the Human-Centered Design (HCD) approach and leveraged the What-Why-How visualization framework to systematically design and implement Why and How visual explanations in the transparent Recommendation and Interest Modeling Application (RIMA). Furthermore, we conducted a qualitative user study (N=12) to investigate the potential effects of providing Why and How explanations together in an explainable RS on the users' perceptions regarding transparency, trust, and satisfaction. Our study showed qualitative evidence confirming that the choice of the explanation intelligibility types depends on the explanation goal and user type.

Algorithms play a crucial role in many technological systems that control or affect various aspects of our lives. As a result, providing explanations for their decisions to address the needs of users and organisations is increasingly expected by laws, regulations, codes of conduct, and the public. However, as laws and regulations do not prescribe how to meet such expectations, organisations are often left to devise their own approaches to explainability, inevitably increasing the cost of compliance and good governance. Hence, we envision Explainability-by-Design, a holistic methodology characterised by proactive measures to include explanation capability in the design of decision-making systems. The methodology consists of three phases: (A) Explanation Requirement Analysis, (B) Explanation Technical Design, and (C) Explanation Validation. This paper describes phase (B), a technical workflow to implement explanation capability from requirements elicited by domain experts for a specific application context. Outputs of this phase are a set of configurations, allowing a reusable explanation service to exploit logs provided by the target application to create provenance traces of the application's decisions. The provenance then can be queried to extract relevant data points, which can be used in explanation plans to construct explanations personalised to their consumers. Following the workflow, organisations can design their decision-making systems to produce explanations that meet the specified requirements. To facilitate the process, we present a software architecture with reusable components to incorporate the resulting explanation capability into an application. Finally, we applied the workflow to two application scenarios and measured the associated development costs. It was shown that the approach is tractable in terms of development time, which can be as low as two hours per sentence.