A core assumption of explainable AI systems is that explanations change what users know, thereby enabling them to act within their complex socio-technical environments. Despite the centrality of action, explanations are often organized and evaluated based on technical aspects. Prior work varies widely in the connections it traces between information provided in explanations and resulting user actions. An important first step in centering action in evaluations is understanding what the XAI community collectively recognizes as the range of information that explanations can present and what actions are associated with them. In this paper, we present our framework, which maps prior work on information presented in explanations and user action, and we discuss the gaps we uncovered about the information presented to users.

In the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual examples explain to a user the predictions of a trained decision model by indicating the modifications to be made to the instance so as to change its associated prediction. These counterfactual examples are generally defined as solutions to an optimization problem whose cost function combines several criteria that quantify desiderata for a good explanation meeting user needs. A large variety of such appropriate properties can be considered, as the user needs are generally unknown and differ from one user to another; their selection and formalization is difficult. To circumvent this issue, several approaches propose to generate, rather than a single one, a set of diverse counterfactual examples to explain a prediction. This paper proposes a review of the numerous, sometimes conflicting, definitions that have been proposed for this notion of diversity. It discusses their underlying principles as well as the hypotheses on the user needs they rely on and proposes to categorize them along several dimensions (explicit vs implicit, universe in which they are defined, level at which they apply), leading to the identification of further research challenges on this topic.

Effective argumentation is essential towards a purposeful conversation with a satisfactory outcome. For example, persuading someone to reconsider smoking might involve empathetic, well founded arguments based on facts and expert opinions about its ill-effects and the consequences on one's family. However, the automatic generation of high-quality factual arguments can be challenging. Addressing existing controllability issues can make the recent advances in computational models for argument generation a potential solution. In this paper, we introduce ArgU: a neural argument generator capable of producing factual arguments from input facts and real-world concepts that can be explicitly controlled for stance and argument structure using Walton's argument scheme-based control codes. Unfortunately, computational argument generation is a relatively new field and lacks datasets conducive to training. Hence, we have compiled and released an annotated corpora of 69,428 arguments spanning six topics and six argument schemes, making it the largest publicly available corpus for identifying argument schemes; the paper details our annotation and dataset creation framework. We further experiment with an argument generation strategy that establishes an inference strategy by generating an ``argument template'' before actual argument generation. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to automatically generate diverse arguments exhibiting different inference patterns for the same set of facts by using control codes based on argument schemes and stance.

A central quest in explainable AI relates to understanding the decisions made by (learned) classifiers. There are three dimensions of this understanding that have been receiving significant attention in recent years. The first dimension relates to characterizing conditions on instances that are necessary and sufficient for decisions, therefore providing abstractions of instances that can be viewed as the "reasons behind decisions." The next dimension relates to characterizing minimal conditions that are sufficient for a decision, therefore identifying maximal aspects of the instance that are irrelevant to the decision. The last dimension relates to characterizing minimal conditions that are necessary for a decision, therefore identifying minimal perturbations to the instance that yield alternate decisions. We discuss in this tutorial a comprehensive, semantical and computational theory of explainability along these dimensions which is based on some recent developments in symbolic logic. The tutorial will also discuss how this theory is particularly applicable to non-symbolic classifiers such as those based on Bayesian networks, decision trees, random forests and some types of neural networks.

Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) techniques are increasingly being explored to provide insights into why AI and machine learning (ML) models provide a certain outcome in various applications. However, there has been limited exploration of explainable AI techniques on time-series data, especially in the healthcare context. In this paper, we describe a threshold-based method that utilizes a weakly supervised model and a gradient-based explainable AI technique (i.e. saliency map) and explore its feasibility to identify salient frames of time-series data. Using the dataset from 15 post-stroke survivors performing three upper-limb exercises and labels on whether a compensatory motion is observed or not, we implemented a feed-forward neural network model and utilized gradients of each input on model outcomes to identify salient frames that involve compensatory motions. According to the evaluation using frame-level annotations, our approach achieved a recall of 0.96 and an F2-score of 0.91. Our results demonstrated the potential of a gradient-based explainable AI technique (e.g. saliency map) for time-series data, such as highlighting the frames of a video that therapists should focus on reviewing and reducing the efforts on frame-level labeling for model training.

The work covers the development and explainability of machine learning models for predicting political leanings through parliamentary transcriptions. We concentrate on the Slovenian parliament and the heated debate on the European migrant crisis, with transcriptions from 2014 to 2020. We develop both classical machine learning and transformer language models to predict the left- or right-leaning of parliamentarians based on their given speeches on the topic of migrants. With both types of models showing great predictive success, we continue with explaining their decisions. Using explainability techniques, we identify keywords and phrases that have the strongest influence in predicting political leanings on the topic, with left-leaning parliamentarians using concepts such as people and unity and speak about refugees, and right-leaning parliamentarians using concepts such as nationality and focus more on illegal migrants. This research is an example that understanding the reasoning behind predictions can not just be beneficial for AI engineers to improve their models, but it can also be helpful as a tool in the qualitative analysis steps in interdisciplinary research.

Recently, eXplainable AI (XAI) research has focused on counterfactual explanations as post-hoc justifications for AI-system decisions (e.g. a customer refused a loan might be told: If you asked for a loan with a shorter term, it would have been approved). Counterfactuals explain what changes to the input-features of an AI system change the output-decision. However, there is a sub-type of counterfactual, semi-factuals, that have received less attention in AI (though the Cognitive Sciences have studied them extensively). This paper surveys these literatures to summarise historical and recent breakthroughs in this area. It defines key desiderata for semi-factual XAI and reports benchmark tests of historical algorithms (along with a novel, naieve method) to provide a solid basis for future algorithmic developments.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) encompasses a range of techniques and procedures aimed at elucidating the decision-making processes of AI models. While XAI is valuable in understanding the reasoning behind AI models, the data used for such revelations poses potential security and privacy vulnerabilities. Existing literature has identified privacy risks targeting machine learning models, including membership inference, model inversion, and model extraction attacks. Depending on the settings and parties involved, such attacks may target either the model itself or the training data used to create the model. We have identified that tools providing XAI can particularly increase the vulnerability of model extraction attacks, which can be a significant issue when the owner of an AI model prefers to provide only black-box access rather than sharing the model parameters and architecture with other parties. To explore this privacy risk, we propose AUTOLYCUS, a model extraction attack that leverages the explanations provided by popular explainable AI tools. We particularly focus on white-box machine learning (ML) models such as decision trees and logistic regression models. We have evaluated the performance of AUTOLYCUS on 5 machine learning datasets, in terms of the surrogate model's accuracy and its similarity to the target model. We observe that the proposed attack is highly effective; it requires up to 60x fewer queries to the target model compared to the state-of-the-art attack, while providing comparable accuracy and similarity. We first validate the performance of the proposed algorithm on decision trees, and then show its performance on logistic regression models as an indicator that the proposed algorithm performs well on white-box ML models in general. Finally, we show that the existing countermeasures remain ineffective for the proposed attack.

Contemporary automation through AI entails a substantial amount of behind-the-scenes human labour, which is often both invisibilised and underpaid. Since invisible labour, including labelling and maintenance work, is an integral part of contemporary AI systems, it remains important to sensitise users to its role. We suggest that this could be done through explainable AI (XAI) design, particularly feminist intersectional XAI. We propose the method of cartography, which stems from feminist intersectional research, to draw out a systemic perspective of AI and include dimensions of AI that pertain to invisible labour.

This paper follows calls for critical approaches to computing and conceptualisations of intersectional, feminist, decolonial HCI and AI design and asks what a feminist intersectional perspective in HCXAI research and design might look like. Sketching out initial research directions and implications for explainable AI design, it suggests that explainability from a feminist perspective would include the fostering of response-ability - the capacity to critically evaluate and respond to AI systems - and would centre marginalised perspectives.