Over the past decade, multivariate time series classification has received great attention. Machine learning (ML) models for multivariate time series classification have made significant strides and achieved impressive success in a wide range of applications and tasks. The challenge of many state-of-the-art ML models is a lack of transparency and interpretability. In this work, we introduce M-CELS, a counterfactual explanation model designed to enhance interpretability in multidimensional time series classification tasks. Our experimental validation involves comparing M-CELS with leading state-of-the-art baselines, utilizing seven real-world time-series datasets from the UEA repository. The results demonstrate the superior performance of M-CELS in terms of validity, proximity, and sparsity, reinforcing its effectiveness in providing transparent insights into the decisions of machine learning models applied to multivariate time series data.

Counterfactual explanations can be used to interpret and debug text classifiers by producing minimally altered text inputs that change a classifier's output. In this work, we evaluate five methods for generating counterfactual explanations for a BERT text classifier on two datasets using three evaluation metrics. The results of our experiments suggest that established white-box substitution-based methods are effective at generating valid counterfactuals that change the classifier's output. In contrast, newer methods based on large language models (LLMs) excel at producing natural and linguistically plausible text counterfactuals but often fail to generate valid counterfactuals that alter the classifier's output. Based on these results, we recommend developing new counterfactual explanation methods that combine the strengths of established gradient-based approaches and newer LLM-based techniques to generate high-quality, valid, and plausible text counterfactual explanations.

The adoption of increasingly complex deep models has fueled an urgent need for insight into how these models make predictions. Counterfactual explanations form a powerful tool for providing actionable explanations to practitioners. Previously, counterfactual explanation methods have been designed by traversing the latent space of generative models. Yet, these latent spaces are usually greatly simplified, with most of the data distribution complexity contained in the decoder rather than the latent embedding. Thus, traversing the latent space naively without taking the nonlinear decoder into account can lead to unnatural counterfactual trajectories. We introduce counterfactual explanations obtained using a Riemannian metric pulled back via the decoder and the classifier under scrutiny. This metric encodes information about the complex geometric structure of the data and the learned representation, enabling us to obtain robust counterfactual trajectories with high fidelity, as demonstrated by our experiments in real-world tabular datasets.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.

Anomaly detection is widely used for identifying critical errors and suspicious behaviors, but current methods lack interpretability. We leverage common properties of existing methods and recent advances in generative models to introduce counterfactual explanations for anomaly detection. Given an input, we generate its counterfactual as a diffusion-based repair that shows what a non-anomalous version should have looked like. A key advantage of this approach is that it enables a domain-independent formal specification of explainability desiderata, offering a unified framework for generating and evaluating explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our anomaly explainability framework, AR-Pro, on vision (MVTec, VisA) and time-series (SWaT, WADI, HAI) anomaly datasets. The code used for the experiments is accessible at: https://github.com/xjiae/arpro.

This chapter provides an overview of research works that present approaches with some degree of cross-fertilisation between Computational Argumentation and Machine Learning. Our review of the literature identified two broad themes representing the purpose of the interaction between these two areas: argumentation for machine learning and machine learning for argumentation. Across these two themes, we systematically evaluate the spectrum of works across various dimensions, including the type of learning and the form of argumentation framework used. Further, we identify three types of interaction between these two areas: synergistic approaches, where the Argumentation and Machine Learning components are tightly integrated; segmented approaches, where the two are interleaved such that the outputs of one are the inputs of the other; and approximated approaches, where one component shadows the other at a chosen level of detail. We draw conclusions about the suitability of certain forms of Argumentation for supporting certain types of Machine Learning, and vice versa, with clear patterns emerging from the review. Whilst the reviewed works provide inspiration for successfully combining the two fields of research, we also identify and discuss limitations and challenges that ought to be addressed in order to ensure that they remain a fruitful pairing as AI advances.

In this work, we focused on constructing and evaluating levels of explanation(LOE) that address two basic aspect of HRI: 1. What information should be communicated to the user by the robot? 2. When should the robot communicate this information? For constructing the LOE, we defined two terms, verbosity and explanation patterns, each with two levels (verbosity -- high and low, explanation patterns -- dynamic and static). Based on these parameters, three different LOE (high, medium, and low) were constructed and evaluated in a user study with a telepresence robot. The user study was conducted for a simulated telerobotic healthcare task with two different conditions related to time sensitivity, as evaluated by two different user groups -- one that performed the task within a time limit and the other with no time limit. We found that the high LOE was preferred in terms of adequacy of explanation, number of collisions, number of incorrect movements, and number of clarifications when users performed the experiment in the without time limit condition. We also found that both high and medium LOE did not have significant differences in completion time, the fluency of HRI, and trust in the robot. When users performed the experiment in the with time limit condition, high and medium LOE had better task performances and were preferred to the low LOE in terms of completion time, fluency, adequacy of explanation, trust, number of collisions, number of incorrect movements and number of clarifications. Future directions for advancing LOE are discussed.

Gradual semantics have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting to explainable AI. In this paper, we provide a novel methodology for obtaining gradual semantics for structured argumentation frameworks, where the building blocks of arguments and relations between them are known, unlike in QBAFs, where arguments are abstract entities. Differently from existing approaches, our methodology accommodates incomplete information about arguments' premises. We demonstrate the potential of our approach by introducing two different instantiations of the methodology, leveraging existing gradual semantics for QBAFs in these more complex frameworks. We also define a set of novel properties for gradual semantics in structured argumentation, discuss their suitability over a set of existing properties. Finally, we provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis assessing the instantiations, demonstrating the their advantages over existing gradual semantics for QBAFs and structured argumentation.

The widespread and diverse online media platforms and other internet-driven communication technologies have presented significant challenges in defining the boundaries of freedom of expression. Consequently, the internet has been transformed into a potential cyber weapon. Within this evolving landscape, two particularly hazardous phenomena have emerged: fake news and doxxing. Although these threats have been subjects of extensive scholarly analysis, the crossroads where they intersect remain unexplored. This research addresses this convergence by introducing a novel system. The Fake News and Doxxing Detection with Explainable Artificial Intelligence (FNDEX) system leverages the capabilities of three distinct transformer models to achieve high-performance detection for both fake news and doxxing. To enhance data security, a rigorous three-step anonymization process is employed, rooted in a pattern-based approach for anonymizing personally identifiable information. Finally, this research emphasizes the importance of generating coherent explanations for the outcomes produced by both detection models. Our experiments on realistic datasets demonstrate that our system significantly outperforms the existing baselines

Machine learning models are increasingly used in critical areas such as loan approvals and hiring, yet they often function as black boxes, obscuring their decision-making processes. Transparency is crucial, as individuals need explanations to understand decisions, primarily if the decisions result in an undesired outcome. Our work introduces CoGS (Counterfactual Generation with s(CASP)), a model-agnostic framework capable of generating counterfactual explanations for classification models. CoGS leverages the goal-directed Answer Set Programming system s(CASP) to compute realistic and causally consistent modifications to feature values, accounting for causal dependencies between them. By using rule-based machine learning algorithms (RBML), notably the FOLD-SE algorithm, CoGS extracts the underlying logic of a statistical model to generate counterfactual solutions. By tracing a step-by-step path from an undesired outcome to a desired one, CoGS offers interpretable and actionable explanations of the changes required to achieve the desired outcome. We present details of the CoGS framework along with its evaluation.