Machine learning (ML) is successful in achieving human-level artificial intelligence in various fields. However, it lacks the ability to explain an outcome due to its black-box nature. While recent efforts on explainable AI (XAI) has received significant attention, most of the existing solutions are not applicable in real-time systems since they map interpretability as an optimization problem, which leads to numerous iterations of time-consuming complex computations. Although there are existing hardware-based acceleration framework for XAI, they are implemented through FPGA and designed for specific tasks, leading to expensive cost and lack of flexibility. In this paper, we propose a simple yet efficient framework to accelerate various XAI algorithms with existing hardware accelerators. Specifically, this paper makes three important contributions. (1) The proposed method is the first attempt in exploring the effectiveness of Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) to accelerate XAI. (2) Our proposed solution explores the close relationship between several existing XAI algorithms with matrix computations, and exploits the synergy between convolution and Fourier transform, which takes full advantage of TPU's inherent ability in accelerating matrix computations. (3) Our proposed approach can lead to real-time outcome interpretation. Extensive experimental evaluation demonstrates that proposed approach deployed on TPU can provide drastic improvement in interpretation time (39x on average) as well as energy efficiency (69x on average) compared to existing acceleration techniques.

Carbon offset programs are critical in the fight against climate change. One emerging threat to the long-term stability and viability of forest carbon offset projects is wildfires, which can release large amounts of carbon and limit the efficacy of associated offsetting credits. However, analysis of wildfire risk to forest carbon projects is challenging because existing models for forecasting long-term fire risk are limited in predictive accuracy. Therefore, we propose an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) model trained on 7 million global satellite wildfire observations. Validation results suggest substantial potential for high resolution, enhanced accuracy projections of global wildfire risk, and the model outperforms the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research's leading fire model. Applied to a collection of 190 global forest carbon projects, we find that fire exposure is projected to increase 55% [37-76%] by 2080 under a mid-range scenario (SSP2-4.5). Our results indicate the large wildfire carbon project damages seen in the past decade are likely to become more frequent as forests become hotter and drier. In response, we hope the model can support wildfire managers, policymakers, and carbon market analysts to preemptively quantify and mitigate long-term permanence risks to forest carbon projects.

Relation extraction (RE) aims to extract potential relations according to the context of two entities, thus, deriving rational contexts from sentences plays an important role. Previous works either focus on how to leverage the entity information (e.g., entity types, entity verbalization) to inference relations, but ignore context-focused content, or use counterfactual thinking to remove the model's bias of potential relations in entities, but the relation reasoning process will still be hindered by irrelevant content. Therefore, how to preserve relevant content and remove noisy segments from sentences is a crucial task. In addition, retained content needs to be fluent enough to maintain semantic coherence and interpretability. In this work, we propose a novel rationale extraction framework named RE2, which leverages two continuity and sparsity factors to obtain relevant and coherent rationales from sentences. To solve the problem that the gold rationales are not labeled, RE2 applies an optimizable binary mask to each token in the sentence, and adjust the rationales that need to be selected according to the relation label. Experiments on four datasets show that RE2 surpasses baselines.

Counterfactual Explanation (CE) is a post-hoc explanation method that provides a perturbation for altering the prediction result of a classifier. Users can interpret the perturbation as an "action" to obtain their desired decision results. Existing CE methods require complete information on the features of an input instance. However, we often encounter missing values in a given instance, and the previous methods do not work in such a practical situation. In this paper, we first empirically and theoretically show the risk that missing value imputation methods affect the validity of an action, as well as the features that the action suggests changing. Then, we propose a new framework of CE, named Counterfactual Explanation by Pairs of Imputation and Action (CEPIA), that enables users to obtain valid actions even with missing values and clarifies how actions are affected by imputation of the missing values. Specifically, our CEPIA provides a representative set of pairs of an imputation candidate for a given incomplete instance and its optimal action. We formulate the problem of finding such a set as a submodular maximization problem, which can be solved by a simple greedy algorithm with an approximation guarantee. Experimental results demonstrated the efficacy of our CEPIA in comparison with the baselines in the presence of missing values.

Other research has also noted the concentration of AI research and development within the Western world [13, 48] and how AI systems primarily embed the cultural values and practices of people within these respective regions, alienating certain groups of users and causing cultural harm [52]. While the development, use, and implementation of AI has transcended borders, a limited amount of work focuses on democratizing the concept of explainable AI to the "majority world" [4], leaving much room to explore and develop new approaches within this space that cater to the distinct needs of users within this region. This article introduces the concept of an intercultural ethics approach to AI explainability. It examines how cultural nuances impact the adoption and use of technology, the factors that impede how technical concepts such as AI are explained, and how integrating an intercultural ethics approach in the development of XAI can improve user understanding and facilitate efficient usage of these methods. We first discuss what it means to explain, reviewing relevant literature within explainable AI and introducing intercultural ethics. We then highlight barriers that impact explainable AI. Next, we introduce the concept of using intercultural ethics to inform AI explainability, outlining steps for researchers interested in leveraging this approach. We conclude the paper by reflecting on the prospect of an intercultural ethics approach to XAI, the limitations of such an approach, and potential areas to build upon this work.

Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used as an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique to provide stakeholders of complex machine learning algorithms with explanations for data-driven decisions. The popularity of counterfactual explanations resulted in a boom in the algorithms generating them. However, not every algorithm creates uniform explanations for the same instance. Even though in some contexts multiple possible explanations are beneficial, there are circumstances where diversity amongst counterfactual explanations results in a potential disagreement problem among stakeholders. Ethical issues arise when for example, malicious agents use this diversity to fairwash an unfair machine learning model by hiding sensitive features. As legislators worldwide tend to start including the right to explanations for data-driven, high-stakes decisions in their policies, these ethical issues should be understood and addressed. Our literature review on the disagreement problem in XAI reveals that this problem has never been empirically assessed for counterfactual explanations. Therefore, in this work, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis, on 40 datasets, using 12 explanation-generating methods, for two black-box models, yielding over 192.0000 explanations. Our study finds alarmingly high disagreement levels between the methods tested. A malicious user is able to both exclude and include desired features when multiple counterfactual explanations are available. This disagreement seems to be driven mainly by the dataset characteristics and the type of counterfactual algorithm. XAI centers on the transparency of algorithmic decision-making, but our analysis advocates for transparency about this self-proclaimed transparency

Counterfactual explanations have become a mainstay of the XAI field. This particularly intuitive statement allows the user to understand what small but necessary changes would have to be made to a given situation in order to change a model prediction. The quality of a counterfactual depends on several criteria: realism, actionability, validity, robustness, etc. In this paper, we are interested in the notion of robustness of a counterfactual. More precisely, we focus on robustness to counterfactual input changes. This form of robustness is particularly challenging as it involves a trade-off between the robustness of the counterfactual and the proximity with the example to explain. We propose a new framework, CROCO, that generates robust counterfactuals while managing effectively this trade-off, and guarantees the user a minimal robustness. An empirical evaluation on tabular datasets confirms the relevance and effectiveness of our approach.

While the emerging research field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) claims to address the lack of explainability in high-performance machine learning models, in practice, XAI targets developers rather than actual end-users. Unsurprisingly, end-users are often unwilling to use XAI-based decision support systems. Similarly, there is limited interdisciplinary research on end-users' behavior during XAI explanations usage, rendering it unknown how explanations may impact cognitive load and further affect end-user performance. Therefore, we conducted an empirical study with 271 prospective physicians, measuring their cognitive load, task performance, and task time for distinct implementation-independent XAI explanation types using a COVID-19 use case. We found that these explanation types strongly influence end-users' cognitive load, task performance, and task time. Further, we contextualized a mental efficiency metric, ranking local XAI explanation types best, to provide recommendations for future applications and implications for sociotechnical XAI research.

Argumentation problems are concerned with determining the acceptability of a set of arguments from their relational structure. When the available information is uncertain, probabilistic argumentation frameworks provide modelling tools to account for it. The first contribution of this paper is a novel interpretation of probabilistic argumentation frameworks as probabilistic logic programs. Probabilistic logic programs are logic programs in which some of the facts are annotated with probabilities. We show that the programs representing probabilistic argumentation frameworks do not satisfy a common assumption in probabilistic logic programming (PLP) semantics, which is, that probabilistic facts fully capture the uncertainty in the domain under investigation. The second contribution of this paper is then a novel PLP semantics for programs where a choice of probabilistic facts does not uniquely determine the truth assignment of the logical atoms. The third contribution of this paper is the implementation of a PLP system supporting this semantics: smProbLog. smProbLog is a novel PLP framework based on the probabilistic logic programming language ProbLog. smProbLog supports many inference and learning tasks typical of PLP, which, together with our first contribution, provide novel reasoning tools for probabilistic argumentation. We evaluate our approach with experiments analyzing the computational cost of the proposed algorithms and their application to a dataset of argumentation problems.

In this paper, we present our participation to CLEF MC2 2018 edition for the task 2 Mining opinion argumentation. It consists in detecting the most argumentative and diverse Tweets about some festivals in English and French from a massive multilingual collection. We measure argumentativity of a Tweet computing the amount of argumentation compounds it contains. We consider argumentation compounds as a combination between opinion expression and its support with facts and a particular structuration. Regarding diversity, we consider the amount of festival aspects covered by Tweets. An initial step filters the original dataset to fit the language and topic requirements of the task. Then, we compute and integrate linguistic descriptors to detect claims and their respective justifications in Tweets. The final step extracts the most diverse arguments by clustering Tweets according to their textual content and selecting the most argumentative ones from each cluster. We conclude the paper describing the different ways we combined the descriptors among the different runs we submitted and discussing their results.