In many applications, it is important to be able to explain the decisions of machine learning systems. An increasingly popular approach has been to seek to provide \emph{counterfactual instance explanations}. These specify close possible worlds in which, contrary to the facts, a person receives their desired decision from the machine learning system. This paper will draw on literature from the philosophy of science to argue that a satisfactory explanation must consist of both counterfactual instances and a causal equation (or system of equations) that support the counterfactual instances. We will show that counterfactual instances by themselves explain little. We will further illustrate how explainable AI methods that provide both causal equations and counterfactual instances can successfully explain machine learning predictions.

Since 2015, the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) provides a systematic comparison of the different algorithms for solving some classical reasoning problems in the domain of abstract argumentation. This paper discusses the design of the Fourth International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation. We describe the rules of the competition and the benchmark selection method that we used. After a brief presentation of the competitors, we give an overview of the results.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) [4, 5] is a popular paradigm for decision making and problem solving in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. It has been successfully applied in a variety of applications such as robotics, planning, diagnosis, etc. ASP is an attractive programming paradigm as it is a declarative language, where programmers focus on the representation of a specific problem as a set of rules in a logical format, and then leave computational solutions of that problem to an answer set solver. However, this mechanism typically gives little insight into why something is a solution and why some proposed set of literals is not a solution. This type of reasoning falls within the scope of explainable Artificial Intelligence and is useful to enhance the understanding of the resulting solutions as well as for debugging programs. So far, only a limited number of approaches have been proposed [1, 6, 7].

Contrastive explanations for understanding the behavior of black box models has gained a lot of attention recently as they provide potential for recourse. In this paper, we propose a method Contrastive Attributed explanations for Text (CAT) which provides contrastive explanations for natural language text data with a novel twist as we build and exploit attribute classifiers leading to more semantically meaningful explanations. To ensure that our contrastive generated text has the fewest possible edits with respect to the original text, while also being fluent and close to a human generated contrastive, we resort to a minimal perturbation approach regularized using a BERT language model and attribute classifiers trained on available attributes. We show through qualitative examples and a user study that our method not only conveys more insight because of these attributes, but also leads to better quality (contrastive) text. Moreover, quantitatively we show that our method is more efficient than other state-of-the-art methods with it also scoring higher on benchmark metrics such as flip rate, (normalized) Levenstein distance, fluency and content preservation.

Counterfactual explanations focus on "actionable knowledge" to help end-users understand how a machine learning outcome could be changed to a more desirable outcome. For this purpose a counterfactual explainer needs to discover input dependencies that relate to outcome changes. Identifying the minimum subset of feature changes needed to action an output change in the decision is an interesting challenge for counterfactual explainers. The DisCERN algorithm introduced in this paper is a case-based counter-factual explainer. Here counterfactuals are formed by replacing feature values from a nearest unlike neighbour (NUN) until an actionable change is observed. We show how widely adopted feature relevance-based explainers (i.e. LIME, SHAP), can inform DisCERN to identify the minimum subset of "actionable features". We demonstrate our DisCERN algorithm on five datasets in a comparative study with the widely used optimisation-based counterfactual approach DiCE. Our results demonstrate that DisCERN is an effective strategy to minimise actionable changes necessary to create good counterfactual explanations.

Automated decision systems (ADS) have become ubiquitous in many high-stakes domains. Those systems typically involve sophisticated yet opaque artificial intelligence (AI) techniques that seldom allow for full comprehension of their inner workings, particularly for affected individuals. As a result, ADS are prone to deficient oversight and calibration, which can lead to undesirable (e.g., unfair) outcomes. In this work, we conduct an online study with 200 participants to examine people's perceptions of fairness and trustworthiness towards ADS in comparison to a scenario where a human instead of an ADS makes a high-stakes decision -- and we provide thorough identical explanations regarding decisions in both cases. Surprisingly, we find that people perceive ADS as fairer than human decision-makers. Our analyses also suggest that people's AI literacy affects their perceptions, indicating that people with higher AI literacy favor ADS more strongly over human decision-makers, whereas low-AI-literacy people exhibit no significant differences in their perceptions.

Rapid improvements in the performance of machine learning models have pushed them to the forefront of data-driven decision-making. Meanwhile, the increased integration of these models into various application domains has further highlighted the need for greater interpretability and transparency. To identify problems such as bias, overfitting, and incorrect correlations, data scientists require tools that explain the mechanisms with which these model decisions are made. In this paper we introduce AdViCE, a visual analytics tool that aims to guide users in black-box model debugging and validation. The solution rests on two main visual user interface innovations: (1) an interactive visualization design that enables the comparison of decisions on user-defined data subsets; (2) an algorithm and visual design to compute and visualize counterfactual explanations - explanations that depict model outcomes when data features are perturbed from their original values. We provide a demonstration of the tool through a use case that showcases the capabilities and potential limitations of the proposed approach.

Numerous government initiatives (e.g. the EU with GDPR) are coming to the conclusion that the increasing complexity of modern software systems must be contrasted with some Rights to Explanation and metrics for the Impact Assessment of these tools, that allow humans to understand and oversee the output of Automated Decision Making systems. Explainable AI was born as a pathway to allow humans to explore and understand the inner working of complex systems. But establishing what is an explanation and objectively evaluating explainability, are not trivial tasks. With this paper, we present a new model-agnostic metric to measure the Degree of eXplainability of correct information in an objective way, exploiting a specific model from Ordinary Language Philosophy called the Achinstein's Theory of Explanations. In order to understand whether this metric is actually behaving as explainability is expected to, we designed a few experiments and a user-study on two realistic AI-based systems for healthcare and finance, involving famous AI technology including Artificial Neural Networks and TreeSHAP. The results we obtained are very encouraging, suggesting that our proposed metric for measuring the Degree of eXplainability is robust on several scenarios and it can be eventually exploited for a lawful Impact Assessment of an Automated Decision Making system.

The transition to a renewable energy system poses challenges for power grid operation and stability. Secondary control is key in restoring the power system to its reference following a disturbance. Underestimating the necessary control capacity may require emergency measures, such as load shedding. Hence, a solid understanding of the emerging risks and the driving factors of control is needed. In this contribution, we establish an explainable machine learning model for the activation of secondary control power in Germany. Training gradient boosted trees, we obtain an accurate description of control activation. Using SHapely Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values, we investigate the dependency between control activation and external features such as the generation mix, forecasting errors, and electricity market data. Thereby, our analysis reveals drivers that lead to high reserve requirements in the German power system. Our transparent approach, utilizing open data and making machine learning models interpretable, opens new scientific discovery avenues.

We propose a new method for explanations in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a tool to test its expressive power within a user interface. In order to bridge the gap between philosophy and human-computer interfaces, we show a new approach for the generation of interactive explanations based on a sophisticated pipeline of AI algorithms for structuring natural language documents into knowledge graphs, answering questions effectively and satisfactorily. Among the mainstream philosophical theories of explanation we identified one that in our view is more easily applicable as a practical model for user-centric tools: Achinstein's Theory of Explanation. With this work we aim to prove that the theory proposed by Achinstein can be actually adapted for being implemented into a concrete software application, as an interactive process answering questions. To this end we found a way to handle the generic (archetypal) questions that implicitly characterise an explanatory processes as preliminary overviews rather than as answers to explicit questions, as commonly understood. To show the expressive power of this approach we designed and implemented a pipeline of AI algorithms for the generation of interactive explanations under the form of overviews, focusing on this aspect of explanations rather than on existing interfaces and presentation logic layers for question answering. We tested our hypothesis on a well-known XAI-powered credit approval system by IBM, comparing CEM, a static explanatory tool for post-hoc explanations, with an extension we developed adding interactive explanations based on our model. The results of the user study, involving more than 100 participants, showed that our proposed solution produced a statistically relevant improvement on effectiveness (U=931.0, p=0.036) over the baseline, thus giving evidence in favour of our theory.