Counterfactual explanations provide means for prescriptive model explanations by suggesting actionable feature changes (e.g., increase income) that allow individuals to achieve favourable outcomes in the future (e.g., insurance approval). Choosing an appropriate method is a crucial aspect for meaningful counterfactual explanations. As documented in recent reviews, there exists a quickly growing literature with available methods. Yet, in the absence of widely available open-source implementations, the decision in favour of certain models is primarily based on what is readily available. Going forward - to guarantee meaningful comparisons across explanation methods - we present CARLA (Counterfactual And Recourse LibrAry), a python library for benchmarking counterfactual explanation methods across both different data sets and different machine learning models. In summary, our work provides the following contributions: (i) an extensive benchmark of 11 popular counterfactual explanation methods, (ii) a benchmarking framework for research on future counterfactual explanation methods, and (iii) a standardized set of integrated evaluation measures and data sets for transparent and extensive comparisons of these methods. We have open sourced CARLA and our experimental results on Github, making them available as competitive baselines.

Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions and hold systems accountable. While "opening the opaque box" is important, understanding who opens the box can govern if the Human-AI interaction is effective. In this paper, we conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups of whos--people with and without a background in AI--perceive different types of AI explanations. These groups were chosen to look at how disparities in AI backgrounds can exacerbate the creator-consumer gap. We quantitatively share what the perceptions are along five dimensions: confidence, intelligence, understandability, second chance, and friendliness. Qualitatively, we highlight how the AI background influences each group's interpretations and elucidate why the differences might exist through the lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups had unwarranted faith in numbers, to different extents and for different reasons, (2) each group found explanatory values in different explanations that went beyond the usage we designed them for, and (3) each group had different requirements of what counts as humanlike explanations. Using our findings, we discuss potential negative consequences such as harmful manipulation of user trust and propose design interventions to mitigate them. By bringing conscious awareness to how and why AI backgrounds shape perceptions of potential creators and consumers in XAI, our work takes a formative step in advancing a pluralistic Human-centered Explainable AI discourse.

Designers of online deliberative platforms aim to counter the degrading quality of online debates and eliminate online discrimination based on class, race or gender. Support technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing open avenues for widening the circle of people involved in deliberation, moving from small groups to ``crowd'' scale. Some design features of large-scale online discussion systems allow larger numbers of people to discuss shared problems, enhance critical thinking, and formulate solutions. However, scaling up deliberation is challenging. We review the transdisciplinary literature on the design of digital mass-deliberation platforms and examine the commonly featured design aspects (e.g., argumentation support, automated facilitation, and gamification). We find that the literature is heavily focused on developing technical fixes for scaling up deliberation, with a heavy western influence on design and test users skew young and highly educated. Contrastingly, there is a distinct lack of discussion on the nature of the design process, the inclusion of stakeholders and issues relating to inclusion, which may unwittingly perpetuate bias. Another tendency of deliberation platforms is to nudge participants to desired forms of argumentation, and simplifying definitions of good and bad arguments to fit algorithmic purposes. Few studies bridge disciplines between deliberative theory, design and engineering. As a result, scaling up deliberation will likely advance in separate systemic siloes. We make design and process recommendations to correct this course and suggest avenues for future research.

Dialogue systems are widely used in AI to support timely and interactive communication with users. We propose a general-purpose dialogue system architecture that leverages computational argumentation to perform reasoning and provide consistent and explainable answers. We illustrate the system using a COVID-19 vaccine information case study.

This is the Proceedings of ICML 2021 Workshop on Theoretic Foundation, Criticism, and Application Trend of Explainable AI. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have undoubtedly brought great success to a wide range of applications in computer vision, computational linguistics, and AI. However, foundational principles underlying the DNNs' success and their resilience to adversarial attacks are still largely missing. Interpreting and theorizing the internal mechanisms of DNNs becomes a compelling yet controversial topic. This workshop pays a special interest in theoretic foundations, limitations, and new application trends in the scope of XAI. These issues reflect new bottlenecks in the future development of XAI.

The growing use of artificial intelligence in medicine is paralleled by growing concern among many policymakers, patients, and physicians about the use of black-box algorithms. In a nutshell, it's this: We don't know what these algorithms are doing or how they are doing it, and since we aren't in a position to understand them, they can't be trusted and shouldn't be relied upon. A new field of research, dubbed explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), aims to address these concerns. As we argue in Science magazine, together with our colleagues I. Glenn Cohen and Theodoros Evgeniou, this approach may not help and, in some instances, can hurt. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially machine learning (ML) algorithms, are increasingly pervasive in health care.

Artificial Intelligence is creating cutting-edge technologies for more efficient workflow in multiple industries across the world in this tech-driven era. There are machine learning and deep learning algorithms that are too complicated for people to understand besides AI engineers or related employees. Artificial Intelligence has generated self-explaining algorithms for stakeholders and partners to comprehend the entire process of transforming enormous complex sets of real-time data into meaningful in-depth insights. This is known as Explainable Artificial Intelligence or XAI in which the results of these solutions can be easily understood by humans. It helps AI designers to explain how AI machines have generated a specific kind of insight or outcome for businesses to thrive in the market. Multiple online courses and platforms are available for a better understanding of Explainable AI by designing interpretable and inclusive Artificial Intelligence.

Whilst an abundance of techniques have recently been proposed to generate counterfactual explanations for the predictions of opaque black-box systems, markedly less attention has been paid to exploring the uncertainty of these generated explanations. This becomes a critical issue in high-stakes scenarios, where uncertain and misleading explanations could have dire consequences (e.g., medical diagnosis and treatment planning). Moreover, it is often difficult to determine if the generated explanations are well grounded in the training data and sensitive to distributional shifts. This paper proposes several practical solutions that can be leveraged to solve these problems by establishing novel connections with other research works in explainability (e.g., trust scores) and uncertainty estimation (e.g., Monte Carlo Dropout). Two experiments demonstrate the utility of our proposed solutions.

For explainability, we generally try to provide the explanation on the basis of the selection and rejection of the specific alternatives or outcomes. For given scenario, why only outcome A selected not B. A useful tool to provide such a discriminative explanation is using counterfactuals. We can use counterfactuals to provide reasonably valid arguments at the end of the conclusion by machine learning model which is supported by either deep learning or classical statistical modeling. With the nature of counterfactuals, a certain set of features are defined that can change the decision of the model. If those features are not available then the final conclusion of the model will be changed.

Predictive process analytics often apply machine learning to predict the future states of a running business process. However, the internal mechanisms of many existing predictive algorithms are opaque and a human decision-maker is unable to understand \emph{why} a certain activity was predicted. Recently, counterfactuals have been proposed in the literature to derive human-understandable explanations from predictive models. Current counterfactual approaches consist of finding the minimum feature change that can make a certain prediction flip its outcome. Although many algorithms have been proposed, their application to the sequence and multi-dimensional data like event logs has not been explored in the literature. In this paper, we explore the use of a recent, popular model-agnostic counterfactual algorithm, DiCE, in the context of predictive process analytics. The analysis reveals that the algorithm is limited when being applied to derive explanations of process predictions, due to (1) process domain knowledge not being taken into account, (2) long traces that often tend to be less understandable, and (3) difficulties in optimising the counterfactual search with categorical variables. We design an extension of DiCE that can generate counterfactuals for process predictions, and propose an approach that supports deriving milestone-aware counterfactuals at different stages of a trace to promote interpretability. We apply our approach to BPIC2012 event log and the analysis results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.