Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms have become ubiquitous. Although they offer a wide range of benefits, their adoption in decision-critical fields is limited by their lack of interpretability, particularly with textual data. Moreover, with more data available than ever before, it has become increasingly important to explain automated predictions. Generally, users find it difficult to understand the underlying computational processes and interact with the models, especially when the models fail to generate the outcomes or explanations, or both, correctly. This problem highlights the growing need for users to better understand the models' inner workings and gain control over their actions. This dissertation focuses on two fundamental challenges of addressing this need. The first involves explanation generation: inferring high-quality explanations from text documents in a scalable and data-driven manner. The second challenge consists in making explanations actionable, and we refer to it as critiquing. This dissertation examines two important applications in natural language processing and recommendation tasks. Overall, we demonstrate that interpretability does not come at the cost of reduced performance in two consequential applications. Our framework is applicable to other fields as well. This dissertation presents an effective means of closing the gap between promise and practice in artificial intelligence.

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.

In their paper Counterfactual Explanations for Land Cover Mapping in a Multi-class Setting, Cassio Dantas, Diego Marcos and Dino Ienco apply counterfactual explanations to remote sensing time series data for land-cover mapping classification. In this interview, Cassio tell us more about explainable AI and counterfactuals, the team's research methodology, and their main findings. Our paper falls into the growing topic of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Despite the performances achieved by recent deep learning approaches, they remain black-box models with limited understanding of their internal behavior. To improve general acceptability and trustworthiness of such models, there is a growing need to improve their interpretability and make their decision-making processes more transparent.

One of the most important aspects of data science is building trust. This is especially true when you're working with machine learning and AI technologies, which are new and unfamiliar to many people. When something goes wrong, what do you tell your customer? What do they think will happen next? With explainable AI, you can provide answers that prove your product's legitimacy.

Nowadays the medical domain is receiving more and more attention in applications involving Artificial Intelligence. Clinicians have to deal with an enormous amount of unstructured textual data to make a conclusion about patients' health in their everyday life. Argument mining helps to provide a structure to such data by detecting argumentative components in the text and classifying the relations between them. However, as it is the case for many tasks in Natural Language Processing in general and in medical text processing in particular, the large majority of the work on computational argumentation has been done only for English. This is also the case with the only dataset available for argumentation in the medical domain, namely, the annotated medical data of abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) from the MEDLINE database. In order to mitigate the lack of annotated data for other languages, we empirically investigate several strategies to perform argument mining and classification in medical texts for a language for which no annotated data is available. This project shows that automatically translating and project annotations from English to a target language (Spanish) is an effective way to generate annotated data without manual intervention. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that the translation and projection approach outperforms zero-shot cross-lingual approaches using a large masked multilingual language model. Finally, we show how the automatically generated data in Spanish can also be used to improve results in the original English evaluation setting.

Natural language interfaces (NLIs) enable users to flexibly specify analytical intentions in data visualization. However, diagnosing the visualization results without understanding the underlying generation process is challenging. Our research explores how to provide explanations for NLIs to help users locate the problems and further revise the queries. We present XNLI, an explainable NLI system for visual data analysis. The system introduces a Provenance Generator to reveal the detailed process of visual transformations, a suite of interactive widgets to support error adjustments, and a Hint Generator to provide query revision hints based on the analysis of user queries and interactions. Two usage scenarios of XNLI and a user study verify the effectiveness and usability of the system. Results suggest that XNLI can significantly enhance task accuracy without interrupting the NLI-based analysis process.

Many computational argumentation tasks, like stance classification, are topic-dependent: the effectiveness of approaches to these tasks significantly depends on whether the approaches were trained on arguments from the same topics as those they are tested on. So, which are these topics that researchers train approaches on? This paper contributes the first comprehensive survey of topic coverage, assessing 45 argument corpora. For the assessment, we take the first step towards building an argument topic ontology, consulting three diverse authoritative sources: the World Economic Forum, the Wikipedia list of controversial topics, and Debatepedia. Comparing the topic sets between the authoritative sources and corpora, our analysis shows that the corpora topics-which are mostly those frequently discussed in public online fora - are covered well by the sources. However, other topics from the sources are less extensively covered by the corpora of today, revealing interesting future directions for corpus construction.

The boundaries of existing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) algorithms are confined to problems grounded in technical users' demand for explainability. This research paradigm disproportionately ignores the larger group of non-technical end users, who have a much higher demand for AI explanations in diverse explanation goals, such as making safer and better decisions and improving users' predicted outcomes. Lacking explainability-focused functional support for end users may hinder the safe and accountable use of AI in high-stakes domains, such as healthcare, criminal justice, finance, and autonomous driving systems. Built upon prior human factor analysis on end users' requirements for XAI, we identify and model four novel XAI technical problems covering the full spectrum from design to the evaluation of XAI algorithms, including edge-case-based reasoning, customizable counterfactual explanation, collapsible decision tree, and the verifiability metric to evaluate XAI utility. Based on these newly-identified research problems, we also discuss open problems in the technical development of user-centered XAI to inspire future research. Our work bridges human-centered XAI with the technical XAI community, and calls for a new research paradigm on the technical development of user-centered XAI for the responsible use of AI in critical tasks.

Rule-based explanations provide simple reasons explaining the behavior of machine learning classifiers at given points in the feature space. Several recent methods (Anchors, LORE, etc.) purport to generate rule-based explanations for arbitrary or black-box classifiers. But what makes these methods work in general? We introduce a topological framework for rule-based explanation methods and provide a characterization of explainability in terms of the definability of a classifier relative to an explanation scheme. We employ this framework to consider various explanation schemes and argue that the preferred scheme depends on how much the user knows about the domain and the probability measure over the feature space.

This article discusses techniques and best practices for explaining the predictions made by tree-based, neural network, and deep learning models. As machine learning models become more prevalent in decision-making processes, it is important to understand how these models make predictions and to be able to explain their decision-making process to a wide range of audiences. This is known as model explainability, or the ability to explain the predictions made by a model in a way that is easily understood by humans. Model explainability is important for a number of reasons, including building trust in the model, identifying biases, and improving the model's performance. There are two main categories of model explainability techniques: local explanation techniques and global explanation techniques.