It is only becoming more vital as in sensitive areas like Political Profiling, Review of Essays in AI gains foothold in making critical - and in some cases, Education, etc. proliferate, there is a great need for increasing fatal - decisions in sensitive areas like Healthcare, Finance, transparency in NLP models to build trust with stakeholders Automated Driving, and such-like [8] [9] [10]. The true potential and identify biases. A lot of work in Explainable AI has aimed to devise explanation methods that give humans insights into of these recent advancements in AI can only be realised the workings and predictions of NLP models. While these if the various stakeholders manage to discern the working of methods distill predictions from complex models like Neural AI models and how their predictions are produced, as that is Networks into consumable explanations, how humans understand necessary to incorporate trust. For example, 83% of people these explanations is still widely unexplored. Innate do not understand automated decision-making systems in the human tendencies and biases can handicap the understanding of these explanations in humans, and can also lead to them criminal justice system, and subsequently, 60% oppose its use misjudging models and predictions as a result. We designed in the domain [11]. But besides securing the buy-in of endusers a randomized survey-based experiment to understand the effectiveness and developers through building trust, AI explainability of saliency-based Post-hoc explainability methods also has the potential of identifying AI inaccuracies prior in Natural Language Processing.

The final search query for the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted on 15th July 2022. Initially, we extracted 1707 journal and conference articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were then applied, and 58 articles were selected for the SLR. The findings show four dimensions that shape the AI explanation, which are format (explanation representation format), completeness (explanation should contain all required information, including the supplementary information), accuracy (information regarding the accuracy of the explanation), and currency (explanation should contain recent information). Moreover, along with the automatic representation of the explanation, the users can request additional information if needed. We have also found five dimensions of XAI effects: trust, transparency, understandability, usability, and fairness. In addition, we investigated current knowledge from selected articles to problematize future research agendas as research questions along with possible research paths. Consequently, a comprehensive framework of XAI and its possible effects on user behavior has been developed.

In this interview, Jasmina told us more about counterfactuals and some of the challenges of implementing them in reinforcement learning settings. RL enables intelligent agents to learn sequential tasks through a trial-and-error process. In the last decade, RL algorithms have been developed for healthcare, autonomous driving, games etc. (Li et al. 2017). However, RL agents often rely on neural networks, making their decision-making process difficult to understand and hindering their adoption to real-life tasks (Puiutta et al. 2020). In supervised learning, counterfactual explanations have been used to answer the question: Given that model produces output A for input features f1 …fk, how can the features be changed so that model outputs a desired output B? (Verma et al. 2020) Counterfactual explanations give actionable advice to humans interacting with an AI system on how to change their features and achieve a desired output.

Visual counterfactual explanations identify modifications to an image that would change the prediction of a classifier. We propose a set of techniques based on generative models (VAE) and a classifier ensemble directly trained in the latent space, which all together, improve the quality of the gradient required to compute visual counterfactuals. These improvements lead to a novel classification model, Clarity, which produces realistic counterfactual explanations over all images. We also present several experiments that give insights on why these techniques lead to better quality results than those in the literature. The explanations produced are competitive with the state-of-the-art and emphasize the importance of selecting a meaningful input space for training.

Random forests (RFs) [Bre01] are machine learning models with various applications in areas like E-commerce, Finance and Medicine. They consist of multiple decision trees that use different subsets of the available features. Given an input, every tree makes an individual decision and the output of the random forest is obtained by a majority vote. They have low risk of overfitting; support both classification and regression tasks and come equipped with some feature importance measures [Bre01]. However, feature importance measures can be too simplistic as they can represent neither joint effects of features (e.g., multi-drug interactions) nor non-monotonicity (e.g., increasing the weight may be healthy for an underweight person, but not for an overweight person). In recent years, a variety of other explanation methods has been proposed. Modelagnostic feature importance measures like LIME [RSG16], SHAP [LL17] and MAPLE [PMT18] have similar limitations like the feature importance measures defined for random forests.

While large pre-trained language models (PLM) have shown their great skills at solving discriminative tasks, a significant gap remains when compared with humans for explanation-related tasks. Among them, explaining the reason why a statement is wrong (e.g., against commonsense) is incredibly challenging. The major difficulty is finding the conflict point, where the statement contradicts our real world. This paper proposes Neon, a two-phrase, unsupervised explanation generation framework. Neon first generates corrected instantiations of the statement (phase I), then uses them to prompt large PLMs to find the conflict point and complete the explanation (phase II). We conduct extensive experiments on two standard explanation benchmarks, i.e., ComVE and e-SNLI. According to both automatic and human evaluations, Neon outperforms baselines, even for those with human-annotated instantiations. In addition to explaining a negative prediction, we further demonstrate that Neon remains effective when generalizing to different scenarios.

This paper evaluates whether training a decision tree based on concepts extracted from a concept-based explainer can increase interpretability for Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) models and boost the fidelity and performance of the used explainer. CNNs for computer vision have shown exceptional performance in critical industries. However, it is a significant barrier when deploying CNNs due to their complexity and lack of interpretability. Recent studies to explain computer vision models have shifted from extracting low-level features (pixel-based explanations) to mid-or high-level features (concept-based explanations). The current research direction tends to use extracted features in developing approximation algorithms such as linear or decision tree models to interpret an original model. In this work, we modify one of the state-of-the-art concept-based explanations and propose an alternative framework named TreeICE. We design a systematic evaluation based on the requirements of fidelity (approximate models to original model's labels), performance (approximate models to ground-truth labels), and interpretability (meaningful of approximate models to humans). We conduct computational evaluation (for fidelity and performance) and human subject experiments (for interpretability) We find that Tree-ICE outperforms the baseline in interpretability and generates more human readable explanations in the form of a semantic tree structure. This work features how important to have more understandable explanations when interpretability is crucial.

This paper presents a Prolog-based reasoning module to generate counterfactual explanations given the predictions computed by a black-box classifier. The proposed symbolic reasoning module can also resolve what-if queries using the ground-truth labels instead of the predicted ones. Overall, our approach comprises four well-defined stages that can be applied to any structured pattern classification problem. Firstly, we pre-process the given dataset by imputing missing values and normalizing the numerical features. Secondly, we transform numerical features into symbolic ones using fuzzy clustering such that extracted fuzzy clusters are mapped to an ordered set of predefined symbols. Thirdly, we encode instances as a Prolog rule using the nominal values, the predefined symbols, the decision classes, and the confidence values. Fourthly, we compute the overall confidence of each Prolog rule using fuzzy-rough set theory to handle the uncertainty caused by transforming numerical quantities into symbols. This step comes with an additional theoretical contribution to a new similarity function to compare the previously defined Prolog rules involving confidence values. Finally, we implement a chatbot as a proxy between human beings and the Prolog-based reasoning module to resolve natural language queries and generate counterfactual explanations. During the numerical simulations using synthetic datasets, we study the performance of our system when using different fuzzy operators and similarity functions. Towards the end, we illustrate how our reasoning module works using different use cases.

Machine learning models are incorporated in different fields and disciplines in which some of them require a high level of accountability and transparency, for example, the healthcare sector. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the importance for plausibility and verifiability of the predictions made by machine learning models has become essential. A widely used category of explanation techniques attempts to explain models’ predictions by quantifying the importance score of each input feature. However, summarizing such scores to provide human-interpretable explanations is challenging. Another category of explanation techniques focuses on learning a domain representation in terms of high-level human-understandable concepts and then utilizing them to explain predictions. These explanations are hampered by how concepts are constructed, which is not intrinsically interpretable. To this end, we propose Concept-based Local Explanations with Feedback (CLEF), a novel local model agnostic explanation framework for learning a set of high-level transparent concept definitions in high-dimensional tabular data that uses clinician-labeled concepts rather than raw features. CLEF maps the raw input features to high-level intuitive concepts and then decompose the evidence of prediction of the instance being explained into concepts. In addition, the proposed framework generates counterfactual explanations, suggesting the minimum changes in the instance’s concept based explanation that will lead to a different prediction. We demonstrate with simulated user feedback on predicting the risk of mortality. Such direct feedback is more effective than other techniques, that rely on hand-labelled or automatically extracted concepts, in learning concepts that align with ground truth concept definitions.

Large-scale language models have been reducing the gap between machines and humans in understanding the real world, yet understanding an individual's theory of mind and behavior from text is far from being resolved. This research proposes a neural model -- Subjective Ground Attention -- that learns subjective grounds of individuals and accounts for their judgments on situations of others posted on social media. Using simple attention modules as well as taking one's previous activities into consideration, we empirically show that our model provides human-readable explanations of an individual's subjective preference in judging social situations. We further qualitatively evaluate the explanations generated by the model and claim that our model learns an individual's subjective orientation towards abstract moral concepts