There has been a growing interest in model-agnostic methods that can make deep learning models more transparent and explainable to a user. Some researchers recently argued that for a machine to achieve a certain degree of human-level explainability, this machine needs to provide human causally understandable explanations, also known as causability. A specific class of algorithms that have the potential to provide causability are counterfactuals. This paper presents an in-depth systematic review of the diverse existing body of literature on counterfactuals and causability for explainable artificial intelligence. We performed an LDA topic modelling analysis under a PRISMA framework to find the most relevant literature articles. This analysis resulted in a novel taxonomy that considers the grounding theories of the surveyed algorithms, together with their underlying properties and applications in real-world data. This research suggests that current model-agnostic counterfactual algorithms for explainable AI are not grounded on a causal theoretical formalism and, consequently, cannot promote causability to a human decision-maker. Our findings suggest that the explanations derived from major algorithms in the literature provide spurious correlations rather than cause/effects relationships, leading to sub-optimal, erroneous or even biased explanations. This paper also advances the literature with new directions and challenges on promoting causability in model-agnostic approaches for explainable artificial intelligence.

The banking software company is teaming up with Canadian Western Bank (CWB) to provide its new Temenos Virtual COO solution to small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs). The product is built on top of Temenos' omnichannel digital banking platform and utilizes explainable AI (XAI) and analytics to support financial decision-making at SMBs. By aggregating banking and business data, SMBs are able to assess their current and projected financial health through the use of XAI-powered models that simulate different business scenarios. Banks could utilize XAI technology to rectify the black box problem associated with traditional AI models used in banking. While a powerful tool in terms of generating financial insights, banks should use XAI to complement their existing interactions with customers--not replace them.

Fairness and explainability are two important and closely related requirements of decision making systems. While fairness and explainability of decision making systems have been extensively studied independently, only little effort has been put into studying fairness of explanations on their own. Current explanations can be unfair to an individual: an example is given by counterfactual explanations which propose different actions to change the output class to two similar individuals. In this work we formally and empirically study individual fairness and its mathematical formalization as robustness for counterfactual explanations as a prominent instance of contrasting explanations. In addition, we propose to use plausible counterfactuals instead of closest counterfactuals for improving the individual fairness of counterfactual explanations.

The societal and ethical implications of the use of opaque artificial intelligence systems for consequential decisions, such as welfare allocation and criminal justice, have generated a lively debate among multiple stakeholder groups, including computer scientists, ethicists, social scientists, policy makers, and end users. However, the lack of a common language or a multi-dimensional framework to appropriately bridge the technical, epistemic, and normative aspects of this debate prevents the discussion from being as productive as it could be. Drawing on the philosophical literature on the nature and value of explanations, this paper offers a multi-faceted framework that brings more conceptual precision to the present debate by (1) identifying the types of explanations that are most pertinent to artificial intelligence predictions, (2) recognizing the relevance and importance of social and ethical values for the evaluation of these explanations, and (3) demonstrating the importance of these explanations for incorporating a diversified approach to improving the design of truthful algorithmic ecosystems. The proposed philosophical framework thus lays the groundwork for establishing a pertinent connection between the technical and ethical aspects of artificial intelligence systems.

Explainable NLP (ExNLP) has increasingly focused on collecting human-annotated explanations. These explanations are used downstream in three ways: as data augmentation to improve performance on a predictive task, as a loss signal to train models to produce explanations for their predictions, and as a means to evaluate the quality of model-generated explanations. In this review, we identify three predominant classes of explanations (highlights, free-text, and structured), organize the literature on annotating each type, point to what has been learned to date, and give recommendations for collecting ExNLP datasets in the future.

In recent years, there has been an explosion of AI research on counterfactual explanations as a solution to the problem of eXplainable AI (XAI). These explanations seem to offer technical, psychological and legal benefits over other explanation techniques. We survey 100 distinct counterfactual explanation methods reported in the literature. This survey addresses the extent to which these methods have been adequately evaluated, both psychologically and computationally, and quantifies the shortfalls occurring. For instance, only 21% of these methods have been user tested. Five key deficits in the evaluation of these methods are detailed and a roadmap, with standardised benchmark evaluations, is proposed to resolve the issues arising; issues, that currently effectively block scientific progress in this field.

The vast field of Artificial Intelligence(AI) has experienced enormous growth in recent years. With newer and more complex models coming each year, AI models have started to surpass human intellect at a pace that no one could have predicted. But as we get more accurate and precise results, it's becoming harder to explain the reasoning behind the complex mathematical decisions these models take. This mathematical abstraction also doesn't help the users maintain their trust in a particular model's decisions. Though the model might have given the correct diagnosis, a doctor can't really advise a patient confidently as he/she doesn't know the reasoning behind the said model's diagnosis.

The widespread adoption of black-box models in Artificial Intelligence has enhanced the need for explanation methods to reveal how these obscure models reach specific decisions. Retrieving explanations is fundamental to unveil possible biases and to resolve practical or ethical issues. Nowadays, the literature is full of methods with different explanations. We provide a categorization of explanation methods based on the type of explanation returned. We present the most recent and widely used explainers, and we show a visual comparison among explanations and a quantitative benchmarking.

Logic-based argumentation is a well-established formalism modelling nonmonotonic reasoning. It has been playing a major role in AI for decades, now. Informally, a set of formulas is the support for a given claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. In such a case, the pair of the support and the claim together is called an argument. In this paper, we study the propositional variants of the following three computational tasks studied in argumentation: ARG (exists a support for a given claim with respect to a given set of formulas), ARG-Check (is a given set a support for a given claim), and ARG-Rel (similarly as ARG plus requiring an additionally given formula to be contained in the support). ARG-Check is complete for the complexity class DP, and the other two problems are known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (Parson et al., J. Log. Comput., 2003) and, accordingly, are highly intractable. Analyzing the reason for this intractability, we perform a two-dimensional classification: first, we consider all possible propositional fragments of the problem within Schaefer's framework (STOC 1978), and then study different parameterizations for each of the fragment. We identify a list of reasonable structural parameters (size of the claim, support, knowledge-base) that are connected to the aforementioned decision problems. Eventually, we thoroughly draw a fine border of parameterized intractability for each of the problems showing where the problems are fixed-parameter tractable and when this exactly stops. Surprisingly, several cases are of very high intractability (paraNP and beyond).

Argumentation provides a representation of arguments and attacks between these arguments. Argumentation can be used to represent a reasoning process over evidence to reach conclusions. Within such a reasoning process, understanding the value of information can improve the quality of decision making based on the output of the reasoning process. The value of an item of information is inherently dependent on the available evidence and the question being answered by the reasoning. In this paper we introduce a value of information on argument frameworks to identify the most valuable arguments within the finite set of arguments in the framework, and the arguments and attacks which could be added to change the output of an evaluation. We demonstrate the value of information within an argument framework representing an intelligence analysis in the maritime domain. Understanding the value of information in an intelligence analysis will allow analysts to balance the value against the costs and risks of collection, to effectively request further collection of intelligence to increase the confidence in the analysis of hypotheses.