Explainable AI (XAI) aims to provide insights into the decisions made by AI models. To date, most XAI approaches provide only one-time, static explanations, which cannot cater to users' diverse knowledge levels and information needs. Conversational explanations have been proposed as an effective method to customize XAI explanations. However, building conversational explanation systems is hindered by the scarcity of training data. Training with synthetic data faces two main challenges: lack of data diversity and hallucination in the generated data. To alleviate these issues, we introduce a repetition penalty to promote data diversity and exploit a hallucination detector to filter out untruthful synthetic conversation turns. We conducted both automatic and human evaluations on the proposed system, fEw-shot Multi-round ConvErsational Explanation (EMCEE). For automatic evaluation, EMCEE achieves relative improvements of 81.6% in BLEU and 80.5% in ROUGE compared to the baselines. EMCEE also mitigates the degeneration of data quality caused by training on synthetic data. In human evaluations (N=60), EMCEE outperforms baseline models and the control group in improving users' comprehension, acceptance, trust, and collaboration with static explanations by large margins. Through a fine-grained analysis of model responses, we further demonstrate that training on self-generated synthetic data improves the model's ability to generate more truthful and understandable answers, leading to better user interactions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first conversational explanation method that can answer free-form user questions following static explanations.

Anchors is a popular local model-agnostic explanation technique whose applicability is limited by its computational inefficiency. To address this limitation, we propose a pre-training-based approach to accelerate Anchors without compromising the explanation quality. Our approach leverages the iterative nature of Anchors' algorithm which gradually refines an explanation until it is precise enough for a given input by providing a general explanation that is obtained through pre-training as Anchors' initial explanation. Specifically, we develop a two-step rule transformation process: the horizontal transformation adapts a pre-trained explanation to the current input by replacing features, and the vertical transformation refines the general explanation until it is precise enough for the input. We evaluate our method across tabular, text, and image datasets, demonstrating that it significantly reduces explanation generation time while maintaining fidelity and interpretability, thereby enabling the practical adoption of Anchors in time-sensitive applications.

The problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant reasoning in knowledge bases (KBs) is a prominent topic in Artificial Intelligence (AI). While there is some work on this problem, the explanations provided by existing approaches often lack critical information or fail to be expressive enough for non-binary conflicts. In this paper, we identify structural weaknesses of the state-of-the-art and propose a generic argumentation-based approach to address these problems. This approach is defined for logics involving reasoning with maximal consistent subsets and shows how any such logic can be translated to argumentation. Our work provides dialogue models as dialectic-proof procedures to compute and explain a query answer wrt inconsistency-tolerant semantics. This allows us to construct dialectical proof trees as explanations, which are more expressive and arguably more intuitive than existing explanation formalisms.

In this interview series, we're meeting some of the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants to find out more about their research. The Doctoral Consortium provides an opportunity for a group of PhD students to discuss and explore their research interests and career objectives in an interdisciplinary workshop together with a panel of established researchers. In the second of our interviews with the 2025 cohort, we hear from Kayla Boggess, a PhD student at the University of Virginia, and find out more about her research on explainable AI. I'm a member of the University of Virginia Link Lab, which is a multi-disciplinary lab focused on cyber-physical systems. There's individuals from departments across the University of Virginia that all work in the lab, so I've had the opportunity to work with other researchers in computer science, system engineering, psychology, and even law during my time there.

Operations Research (OR) is vital for decision-making in many industries. While recent OR methods have seen significant improvements in automation and efficiency through integrating Large Language Models (LLMs), they still struggle to produce meaningful explanations. This lack of clarity raises concerns about transparency and trustworthiness in OR applications. To address these challenges, we propose a comprehensive framework, Explainable Operations Research (EOR), emphasizing actionable and understandable explanations accompanying optimization. The core of EOR is the concept of Decision Information, which emerges from what-if analysis and focuses on evaluating the impact of complex constraints (or parameters) changes on decision-making. Specifically, we utilize bipartite graphs to quantify the changes in the OR model and adopt LLMs to improve the explanation capabilities. Additionally, we introduce the first industrial benchmark to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of explanations and analyses in OR, establishing a new standard for transparency and clarity in the field.

Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a powerful tool to unveil the opaque decision-making processes of graph neural networks (GNNs). However, existing techniques primarily focus on edge modifications, often overlooking the crucial role of node feature perturbations in shaping model predictions. To address this limitation, we propose COMBINEX, a novel GNN explainer that generates counterfactual explanations for both node and graph classification tasks. Unlike prior methods, which treat structural and feature-based changes independently, COMBINEX optimally balances modifications to edges and node features by jointly optimizing these perturbations. This unified approach ensures minimal yet effective changes required to flip a model's prediction, resulting in realistic and interpretable counterfactuals. Additionally, COMBINEX seamlessly handles both continuous and discrete node features, enhancing its versatility across diverse datasets and GNN architectures. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets and various GNN architectures demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our approach over existing baselines.

Most commonly used non-linear machine learning methods are closed-box models, uninterpretable to humans. The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to develop tools to examine the inner workings of these closed boxes. An often-used model-agnostic approach to XAI involves using simple models as local approximations to produce so-called local explanations; examples of this approach include LIME, SHAP, and SLISEMAP. This paper shows how a large set of local explanations can be reduced to a small "proxy set" of simple models, which can act as a generative global explanation. This reduction procedure, ExplainReduce, can be formulated as an optimisation problem and approximated efficiently using greedy heuristics.

This research is focused on generating achievable counterfactual explanations. Given a negative outcome computed by a machine learning model or a decision system, the novel CoGS approach generates (i) a counterfactual solution that represents a positive outcome and (ii) a path that will take us from the negative outcome to the positive one, where each node in the path represents a change in an attribute (feature) value. CoGS computes paths that respect the causal constraints among features. Thus, the counterfactuals computed by CoGS are realistic. CoGS utilizes rule-based machine learning algorithms to model causal dependencies between features. The paper discusses the current status of the research and the preliminary results obtained.

The growing interest in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has prompted research into models with built-in interpretability, the most prominent of which are part-prototype models. Part-Prototype Models (PPMs) make decisions by comparing an input image to a set of learned prototypes, providing human-understandable explanations in the form of ``this looks like that''. Despite their inherent interpretability, PPMS are not yet considered a valuable alternative to post-hoc models. In this survey, we investigate the reasons for this and provide directions for future research. We analyze papers from 2019 to 2024, and derive a taxonomy of the challenges that current PPMS face. Our analysis shows that the open challenges are quite diverse. The main concern is the quality and quantity of prototypes. Other concerns are the lack of generalization to a variety of tasks and contexts, and general methodological issues, including non-standardized evaluation. We provide ideas for future research in five broad directions: improving predictive performance, developing novel architectures grounded in theory, establishing frameworks for human-AI collaboration, aligning models with humans, and establishing metrics and benchmarks for evaluation. We hope that this survey will stimulate research and promote intrinsically interpretable models for application domains. Our list of surveyed papers is available at https://github.com/aix-group/ppm-survey.

The pervasiveness of large language models and generative AI in online media has amplified the need for effective automated fact-checking to assist fact-checkers in tackling the increasing volume and sophistication of misinformation. The complex nature of fact-checking demands that automated fact-checking systems provide explanations that enable fact-checkers to scrutinise their outputs. However, it is unclear how these explanations should align with the decision-making and reasoning processes of fact-checkers to be effectively integrated into their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals, we bridge this gap by: (i) providing an account of how fact-checkers assess evidence, make decisions, and explain their processes; (ii) examining how fact-checkers use automated tools in practice; and (iii) identifying fact-checker explanation requirements for automated fact-checking tools. The findings show unmet explanation needs and identify important criteria for replicable fact-checking explanations that trace the model's reasoning path, reference specific evidence, and highlight uncertainty and information gaps.