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

Explainable artificial intelligence is proposed to provide explanations for reasoning performed by an Artificial Intelligence. There is no consensus on how to evaluate the quality of these explanations, since even the definition of explanation itself is not clear in the literature. In particular, for the widely known Local Linear Explanations, there are qualitative proposals for the evaluation of explanations, although they suffer from theoretical inconsistencies. The case of image is even more problematic, where a visual explanation seems to explain a decision while detecting edges is what it really does. There are a large number of metrics in the literature specialized in quantitatively measuring different qualitative aspects so we should be able to develop metrics capable of measuring in a robust and correct way the desirable aspects of the explanations. In this paper, we propose a procedure called REVEL to evaluate different aspects concerning the quality of explanations with a theoretically coherent development. This procedure has several advances in the state of the art: it standardizes the concepts of explanation and develops a series of metrics not only to be able to compare between them but also to obtain absolute information regarding the explanation itself. The experiments have been carried out on image four datasets as benchmark where we show REVEL's descriptive and analytical power.

With the rising need of interpretable machine learning methods, there is a necessity for a rise in human effort to provide diverse explanations of the influencing factors of the model decisions. To improve the trust and transparency of AI-based systems, the EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) field has emerged. The XAI paradigm is bifurcated into two main categories: feature attribution and counterfactual explanation methods. While feature attribution methods are based on explaining the reason behind a model decision, counterfactual explanation methods discover the smallest input changes that will result in a different decision. In this paper, we aim at building trust and transparency in time series models by using motifs to generate counterfactual explanations. We propose Motif-Guided Counterfactual Explanation (MG-CF), a novel model that generates intuitive post-hoc counterfactual explanations that make full use of important motifs to provide interpretive information in decision-making processes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort that leverages motifs to guide the counterfactual explanation generation. We validated our model using five real-world time-series datasets from the UCR repository. Our experimental results show the superiority of MG-CF in balancing all the desirable counterfactual explanations properties in comparison with other competing state-of-the-art baselines.

Progress on many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, such as text classification, is driven by objective, reproducible and scalable evaluation via publicly available benchmarks. However, these are not always representative of real-world scenarios where text classifiers are employed, such as sentiment analysis or misinformation detection. In this position paper, we put forward two points that aim to alleviate this problem. First, we propose to extend text classification benchmarks to evaluate the explainability of text classifiers. We review challenges associated with objectively evaluating the capabilities to produce valid explanations which leads us to the second main point: We propose to ground these benchmarks in human-centred applications, for example by using social media, gamification or to learn explainability metrics from human judgements.

A major concern of Machine Learning (ML) models is their opacity. They are deployed in an increasing number of applications where they often operate as black boxes that do not provide explanations for their predictions. Among others, the potential harms associated with the lack of understanding of the models' rationales include privacy violations, adversarial manipulations, and unfair discrimination. As a result, the accountability and transparency of ML models have been posed as critical desiderata by works in policy and law, philosophy, and computer science. In computer science, the decision-making process of ML models has been studied by developing accountability and transparency methods. Accountability methods, such as adversarial attacks and diagnostic datasets, expose vulnerabilities of ML models that could lead to malicious manipulations or systematic faults in their predictions. Transparency methods explain the rationales behind models' predictions gaining the trust of relevant stakeholders and potentially uncovering mistakes and unfairness in models' decisions. To this end, transparency methods have to meet accountability requirements as well, e.g., being robust and faithful to the underlying rationales of a model. This thesis presents my research that expands our collective knowledge in the areas of accountability and transparency of ML models developed for complex reasoning tasks over text.

As Artificial intelligence (AI) is getting democratized across enterprises, it is slowly getting embedded in the fabric of our existence. An important aspect of this democratization is that end-users should be able to fully comprehend the process and mechanisms that AI is using to reach to a conclusion or how it is operating to deliver the desired outcomes. As human beings, we have a deep-rooted need to uncover the "why" and "how" of any phenomenon, which has accelerated our technological progress. In the context of AI, this understanding is termed as "explainability." More often than not, we approach AI as a "black box", where we only have awareness of the inputs and outputs, but somewhere the processes used are lost on us.