Human-annotated labels and explanations are critical for training explainable NLP models. However, unlike human-annotated labels whose quality is easier to calibrate (e.g., with a majority vote), human-crafted free-form explanations can be quite subjective. Before blindly using them as ground truth to train ML models, a vital question needs to be asked: How do we evaluate a human-annotated explanation's quality? In this paper, we build on the view that the quality of a human-annotated explanation can be measured based on its helpfulness (or impairment) to the ML models' performance for the desired NLP tasks for which the annotations were collected. In comparison to the commonly used Simulatability score, we define a new metric that can take into consideration the helpfulness of an explanation for model performance at both fine-tuning and inference. With the help of a unified dataset format, we evaluated the proposed metric on five datasets (e.g., e-SNLI) against two model architectures (T5 and BART), and the results show that our proposed metric can objectively evaluate the quality of human-annotated explanations, while Simulatability falls short.

The term explanation in artificial intelligence (AI) is often conflated with the concepts of interpretability and explainable AI (XAI), but there are important distinctions to be made. Miller (2019) defines interpretability and XAI as the process of building AI systems that humans can understand. In other words, by design, the AI's decision-making process is inherently transparent to a human. In contrast, explicitly explaining the decision-making to an arbitrary human is explanation generation. The latter is the subject of this paper. More specifically, we are working towards developing a formal framework for the automated generation and assessment of explanations. Firstly, some key terminology: an explanation is generated through a dialectical interaction whereby one agent, the explainer, seeks to'explain' some phenomenon, called the explanandum, to another agent, the explainee. In this article, we propose a novel measure of explanatory effectiveness that can be used to motivate artificial agents to generate good explanations (e.g. in the form of a reward signal), or to analyse the behaviours of existing communicating agents. We then define explanation games as cooperative games where two (or more) agents seek to maximise the effectiveness measure.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent there is a growing demand from regulators to accompany decisions made by such systems with explanations. However, a persistent gap exists between the need to execute a meaningful right to explanation vs. the ability of Machine Learning systems to deliver on such a legal requirement. The regulatory appeal towards "a right to explanation" of AI systems can be attributed to the significant role of explanations, part of the notion called reason-giving, in law. Therefore, in this work we examine reason-giving's purposes in law to analyze whether reasons provided by end-user Explainability can adequately fulfill them. We find that reason-giving's legal purposes include: (a) making a better and more just decision, (b) facilitating due-process, (c) authenticating human agency, and (d) enhancing the decision makers' authority. Using this methodology, we demonstrate end-user Explainabilty's inadequacy to fulfil reason-giving's role in law, given reason-giving's functions rely on its impact over a human decision maker. Thus, end-user Explainability fails, or is unsuitable, to fulfil the first, second and third legal function. In contrast we find that end-user Explainability excels in the fourth function, a quality which raises serious risks considering recent end-user Explainability research trends, Large Language Models' capabilities, and the ability to manipulate end-users by both humans and machines. Hence, we suggest that in some cases the right to explanation of AI systems could bring more harm than good to end users. Accordingly, this study carries some important policy ramifications, as it calls upon regulators and Machine Learning practitioners to reconsider the widespread pursuit of end-user Explainability and a right to explanation of AI systems.

After introducing the scope of this paper, we start by discussing what an "explanation" really is. We then move on to discuss some of the existing approaches to XAI and build a taxonomy of the most popular methods. Next, we also look at a few applications of these and other XAI techniques in four primary domains: finance, autonomous driving, healthcare and manufacturing. We end by introducing a promising discipline, "Explanation Engineering," which includes a systematic approach for designing explainability into AI systems.

In recent years, understanding the decision-making process of black-box models has become not only a legal requirement but also an additional way to assess their performance. However, the state of the art post-hoc interpretation approaches rely on synthetic data generation. This introduces uncertainty and can hurt the reliability of the interpretations. Furthermore, they tend to produce explanations that apply to only very few data points. This makes the explanations brittle and limited in scope. Finally, they provide scores that have no direct verifiable meaning. In this paper, we present BELLA, a deterministic model-agnostic post-hoc approach for explaining the individual predictions of regression black-box models. BELLA provides explanations in the form of a linear model trained in the feature space. Thus, its coefficients can be used directly to compute the predicted value from the feature values. Furthermore, BELLA maximizes the size of the neighborhood to which the linear model applies, so that the explanations are accurate, simple, general, and robust. BELLA can produce both factual and counterfactual explanations. Our user study confirms the importance of the desiderata we optimize, and our experiments show that BELLA outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches on these desiderata.

EXplainable AI (XAI) is an essential topic to improve human understanding of deep neural networks (DNNs) given their black-box internals. For computer vision tasks, mainstream pixel-based XAI methods explain DNN decisions by identifying important pixels, and emerging concept-based XAI explore forming explanations with concepts (e.g., a head in an image). However, pixels are generally hard to interpret and sensitive to the imprecision of XAI methods, whereas "concepts" in prior works require human annotation or are limited to pre-defined concept sets. On the other hand, driven by large-scale pre-training, Segment Anything Model (SAM) has been demonstrated as a powerful and promotable framework for performing precise and comprehensive instance segmentation, enabling automatic preparation of concept sets from a given image. This paper for the first time explores using SAM to augment concept-based XAI. We offer an effective and flexible concept-based explanation method, namely Explain Any Concept (EAC), which explains DNN decisions with any concept. While SAM is highly effective and offers an "out-of-the-box" instance segmentation, it is costly when being integrated into defacto XAI pipelines. We thus propose a lightweight per-input equivalent (PIE) scheme, enabling efficient explanation with a surrogate model. Our evaluation over two popular datasets (ImageNet and COCO) illustrate the highly encouraging performance of EAC over commonly-used XAI methods.

In eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual explanations are known to give simple, short, and comprehensible justifications for complex model decisions. However, we are yet to see more applied studies in which they are applied in real-world cases. To fill this gap, this study focuses on showing how counterfactuals are applied to employability-related problems which involve complex machine learning algorithms. For these use cases, we use real data obtained from a public Belgian employment institution (VDAB). The use cases presented go beyond the mere application of counterfactuals as explanations, showing how they can enhance decision support, comply with legal requirements, guide controlled changes, and analyze novel insights.

Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.

The success of deep learning models on multi-hop fact verification has prompted researchers to understand the behavior behind their veracity. One possible way is erasure search: obtaining the rationale by entirely removing a subset of input without compromising the veracity prediction. Although extensively explored, existing approaches fall within the scope of the single-granular (tokens or sentences) explanation, which inevitably leads to explanation redundancy and inconsistency. To address such issues, this paper explores the viability of multi-granular rationale extraction with consistency and faithfulness for explainable multi-hop fact verification. In particular, given a pretrained veracity prediction model, both the token-level explainer and sentence-level explainer are trained simultaneously to obtain multi-granular rationales via differentiable masking. Meanwhile, three diagnostic properties (fidelity, consistency, salience) are introduced and applied to the training process, to ensure that the extracted rationales satisfy faithfulness and consistency. Experimental results on three multi-hop fact verification datasets show that the proposed approach outperforms some state-of-the-art baselines.

Arguments often do not make explicit how a conclusion follows from its premises. To compensate for this lack, we enrich arguments with structured background knowledge to support knowledge-intense argumentation tasks. We present a new unsupervised method for constructing Contextualized Commonsense Knowledge Graphs (CCKGs) that selects contextually relevant knowledge from large knowledge graphs (KGs) efficiently and at high quality. Our work goes beyond context-insensitive knowledge extraction heuristics by computing semantic similarity between KG triplets and textual arguments. Using these triplet similarities as weights, we extract contextualized knowledge paths that connect a conclusion to its premise, while maximizing similarity to the argument. We combine multiple paths into a CCKG that we optionally prune to reduce noise and raise precision. Intrinsic evaluation of the quality of our graphs shows that our method is effective for (re)constructing human explanation graphs. Manual evaluations in a large-scale knowledge selection setup confirm high recall and precision of implicit CSK in the CCKGs. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CCKGs in a knowledge-insensitive argument quality rating task, outperforming strong baselines and rivaling a GPT-3 based system.