Machine learning (ML) on graph-structured data has recently received deepened interest in the context of intrusion detection in the cybersecurity domain. Due to the increasing amounts of data generated by monitoring tools as well as more and more sophisticated attacks, these ML methods are gaining traction. Knowledge graphs and their corresponding learning techniques such as Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) with their ability to seamlessly integrate data from multiple domains using human-understandable vocabularies, are finding application in the cybersecurity domain. However, similar to other connectionist models, GNNs are lacking transparency in their decision making. This is especially important as there tend to be a high number of false positive alerts in the cybersecurity domain, such that triage needs to be done by domain experts, requiring a lot of man power. Therefore, we are addressing Explainable AI (XAI) for GNNs to enhance trust management by exploring combining symbolic and sub-symbolic methods in the area of cybersecurity that incorporate domain knowledge. We experimented with this approach by generating explanations in an industrial demonstrator system. The proposed method is shown to produce intuitive explanations for alerts for a diverse range of scenarios. Not only do the explanations provide deeper insights into the alerts, but they also lead to a reduction of false positive alerts by 66% and by 93% when including the fidelity metric.

In explanatory interactive learning (XIL) the user queries the learner, then the learner explains its answer to the user and finally the loop repeats. XIL is attractive for two reasons, (1) the learner becomes better and (2) the user's trust increases. For both reasons to hold, the learner's explanations must be useful to the user and the user must be allowed to ask useful questions. Ideally, both questions and explanations should be grounded in a causal model since they avoid spurious fallacies. Ultimately, we seem to seek a causal variant of XIL. The question part on the user's end we believe to be solved since the user's mental model can provide the causal model. But how would the learner provide causal explanations? In this work we show that existing explanation methods are not guaranteed to be causal even when provided with a Structural Causal Model (SCM). Specifically, we use the popular, proclaimed causal explanation method CXPlain to illustrate how the generated explanations leave open the question of truly causal explanations. Thus as a step towards causal XIL, we propose a solution to the lack of causal explanations. We solve this problem by deriving from first principles an explanation method that makes full use of a given SCM, which we refer to as SC$\textbf{E}$ ($\textbf{E}$ standing for explanation). Since SCEs make use of structural information, any causal graph learner can now provide human-readable explanations. We conduct several experiments including a user study with 22 participants to investigate the virtue of SCE as causal explanations of SCMs.

Improvements of machine learning techniques for decision systems has led to the rise of applications in various domains such as healthcare, credit or justice. The eventual sensitivity of such domains, as well as the black-box nature of the algorithms, has motivated the need for methods that explain why some prediction was made. For example, if a person's loan is rejected as a result of a model decision, the bank must be able to explain why. In such a context, it might be interesting to provide an explanation of what that person should change to influence the model's decision. As suggested by Wachter et al. [27], one way to build this type of explanation is through the use of counterfactual explanations. A counterfactual is defined as the smallest modification of feature values that changes the prediction of a model to a given output. In addition, the explanation also provides important feedback to the user. In the context of a denied credit, a counterfactual is a close individual for whom his credit is accepted and the feature modifications suggested by a counterfactual acts as recourse for the user. For privacy reason or simply because there is no similar individual with an opposite decision, we aim to generate synthetic individuals as counterfactuals.

Although machine learning (ML) models of AI achieve high performances in medicine, they are not free of errors. Empowering clinicians to identify incorrect model recommendations is crucial for engendering trust in medical AI. Explainable AI (XAI) aims to address this requirement by clarifying AI reasoning to support the end users. Several studies on biomedical imaging achieved promising results recently. Nevertheless, solutions for models using tabular data are not sufficient to meet the requirements of clinicians yet. This paper proposes a methodology to support clinicians in identifying failures of ML models trained with tabular data. We built our methodology on three main pillars: decomposing the feature set by leveraging clinical context latent space, assessing the clinical association of global explanations, and Latent Space Similarity (LSS) based local explanations. We demonstrated our methodology on ML-based recognition of preterm infant morbidities caused by infection. The risk of mortality, lifelong disability, and antibiotic resistance due to model failures was an open research question in this domain. We achieved to identify misclassification cases of two models with our approach. By contextualizing local explanations, our solution provides clinicians with actionable insights to support their autonomy for informed final decisions.

Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a popular solution for the eXplainable AI (XAI) problem of elucidating the predictions of black-box deep-learning systems due to their psychological validity, flexibility across problem domains and proposed legal compliance. While over 100 counterfactual methods exist, claiming to generate plausible explanations akin to those preferred by people, few have actually been tested on users ($\sim7\%$). So, the psychological validity of these counterfactual algorithms for effective XAI for image data is not established. This issue is addressed here using a novel methodology that (i) gathers ground truth human-generated counterfactual explanations for misclassified images, in two user studies and, then, (ii) compares these human-generated ground-truth explanations to computationally-generated explanations for the same misclassifications. Results indicate that humans do not "minimally edit" images when generating counterfactual explanations. Instead, they make larger, "meaningful" edits that better approximate prototypes in the counterfactual class.

This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the third volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI.

In this paper we propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. The approach allows for conditional reasoning over arguments and boolean combination of arguments, with respect to a class of gradual semantics, through the verification of graded (strict or defeasible) implications over a preferential interpretation. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning in a many-valued argumentation semantics of weighted argumentation graphs. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.

To increase the adoption of counterfactual explanations in practice, several criteria that these should adhere to have been put forward in the literature. We propose counterfactual explanations using optimization with constraint learning (CE-OCL), a generic and flexible approach that addresses all these criteria and allows room for further extensions. Specifically, we discuss how we can leverage an optimization with constraint learning framework for the generation of counterfactual explanations, and how components of this framework readily map to the criteria. We also propose two novel modeling approaches to address data manifold closeness and diversity, which are two key criteria for practical counterfactual explanations. We test CE-OCL on several datasets and present our results in a case study. Compared against the current state-of-the-art methods, CE-OCL allows for more flexibility and has an overall superior performance in terms of several evaluation metrics proposed in related work.

We introduce OmniXAI (short for Omni eXplainable AI), an open-source Python library of eXplainable AI (XAI), which offers omni-way explainable AI capabilities and various interpretable machine learning techniques to address the pain points of understanding and interpreting the decisions made by machine learning (ML) in practice. OmniXAI aims to be a one-stop comprehensive library that makes explainable AI easy for data scientists, ML researchers and practitioners who need explanation for various types of data, models and explanation methods at different stages of ML process (data exploration, feature engineering, model development, evaluation, and decision-making, etc). In particular, our library includes a rich family of explanation methods integrated in a unified interface, which supports multiple data types (tabular data, images, texts, time-series), multiple types of ML models (traditional ML in Scikit-learn and deep learning models in PyTorch/TensorFlow), and a range of diverse explanation methods including "model-specific" and "model-agnostic" ones (such as feature-attribution explanation, counterfactual explanation, gradient-based explanation, etc). For practitioners, the library provides an easy-to-use unified interface to generate the explanations for their applications by only writing a few lines of codes, and also a GUI dashboard for visualization of different explanations for more insights about decisions. In this technical report, we present OmniXAI's design principles, system architectures, and major functionalities, and also demonstrate several example use cases across different types of data, tasks, and models.

Counterfactual (CF) explanations have been employed as one of the modes of explainability in explainable AI-both to increase the transparency of AI systems and to provide recourse. Cognitive science and psychology, however, have pointed out that people regularly use CFs to express causal relationships. Most AI systems are only able to capture associations or correlations in data so interpreting them as casual would not be justified. In this paper, we present two experiment (total N = 364) exploring the effects of CF explanations of AI system's predictions on lay people's causal beliefs about the real world. In Experiment 1 we found that providing CF explanations of an AI system's predictions does indeed (unjustifiably) affect people's causal beliefs regarding factors/features the AI uses and that people are more likely to view them as causal factors in the real world. Inspired by the literature on misinformation and health warning messaging, Experiment 2 tested whether we can correct for the unjustified change in causal beliefs. We found that pointing out that AI systems capture correlations and not necessarily causal relationships can attenuate the effects of CF explanations on people's causal beliefs.