An important line of research in the field of explainability is to extract a small subset of crucial rationales from the full input. The most widely used criterion for rationale extraction is the maximum mutual information (MMI) criterion. However, in certain datasets, there are spurious features non-causally correlated with the label and also get high mutual information, complicating the loss landscape of MMI. Although some penalty-based methods have been developed to penalize the spurious features (e.g., invariance penalty, intervention penalty, etc) to help MMI work better, these are merely remedial measures. In the optimization objectives of these methods, spurious features are still distinguished from plain noise, which hinders the discovery of causal rationales. This paper aims to develop a new criterion that treats spurious features as plain noise, allowing the model to work on datasets rich in spurious features as if it were working on clean datasets, thereby making rationale extraction easier. We theoretically observe that removing either plain noise or spurious features from the input does not alter the conditional distribution of the remaining components relative to the task label. However, significant changes in the conditional distribution occur only when causal features are eliminated. Based on this discovery, the paper proposes a criterion for \textbf{M}aximizing the \textbf{R}emaining \textbf{D}iscrepancy (MRD). Experiments on six widely used datasets show that our MRD criterion improves rationale quality (measured by the overlap with human-annotated rationales) by up to $10.4\%$ as compared to several recent competitive MMI variants. Code: \url{https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-MRD}.

With the rapid development of black-box machine learning (ML) models, such as deep neural networks or gradient boosting trees, the need for explanations of their decisions has emerged. This demand has been driven by the increasing implementation of opaque models, in high-risk and critical areas like medicine, healthcare, industry, and law, which laid the foundation for modern research on explainable and interpretable artificial intelligence (XAI). Scientists' efforts in designing XAI algorithms have been further supported by political initiatives such as DARPA's XAI challenge [1], the European Union's GDPR [2], and more recently, the EU AI Act [3]. The shared goal of all these initiatives is to improve the transparency of AI systems, thereby promoting their adoption in areas where trust in AI is not fully established or where the transparency of decisions is crucial for legal and safety reasons. However, as XAI algorithms have been advanced, a new discussion has been initiated, addressing the fundamental challenge of ensuring that the explanations generated by these algorithms are comprehensible to humans. This triggered research on the evaluation of XAI [4], drawing attention from social sciences, which argued that much of the effort in XAI relies solely on researchers' intuition about what constitutes a good explanation. They emphasized that human factors should be integral to the design and evaluation of XAI to ensure its reliability [5]. Recognizing individual human abilities to comprehend algorithmically generated explanations is crucial, as these abilities can vary significantly based on personal information competencies. Additionally, there is a lack of established multidisciplinary methods for measuring these capabilities, as well as datasets that facilitate reproducible evaluations or comprehensive analyses.

Explanation generation plays a more pivotal role than fact verification in producing interpretable results and facilitating comprehensive fact-checking, which has recently garnered considerable attention. However, previous studies on explanation generation has shown several limitations, such as being confined to English scenarios, involving overly complex inference processes, and not fully unleashing the potential of the mutual feedback between veracity labels and explanation texts. To address these issues, we construct two complex fact-checking datasets in the Chinese scenarios: CHEF-EG and TrendFact. These datasets involve complex facts in areas such as health, politics, and society, presenting significant challenges for fact verification methods. In response to these challenges, we propose a unified framework called FactISR (Augmenting Fact-Checking via Iterative Self-Revision) to perform mutual feedback between veracity and explanations by leveraging the capabilities of large language models(LLMs). FactISR uses a single model to address tasks such as fact verification and explanation generation. Its self-revision mechanism can further revision the consistency between veracity labels, explanation texts, and evidence, as well as eliminate irrelevant noise. We conducted extensive experiments with baselines and FactISR on the proposed datasets. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

The aggressiveness of prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men worldwide, is primarily assessed based on histopathological data using the Gleason scoring system. While artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in accurately predicting Gleason scores, these predictions often lack inherent explainability, potentially leading to distrust in human-machine interactions. To address this issue, we introduce a novel dataset of 1,015 tissue microarray core images, annotated by an international group of 54 pathologists. The annotations provide detailed localized pattern descriptions for Gleason grading in line with international guidelines. Utilizing this dataset, we develop an inherently explainable AI system based on a U-Net architecture that provides predictions leveraging pathologists' terminology. This approach circumvents post-hoc explainability methods while maintaining or exceeding the performance of methods trained directly for Gleason pattern segmentation (Dice score: 0.713 $\pm$ 0.003 trained on explanations vs. 0.691 $\pm$ 0.010 trained on Gleason patterns). By employing soft labels during training, we capture the intrinsic uncertainty in the data, yielding strong results in Gleason pattern segmentation even in the context of high interobserver variability. With the release of this dataset, we aim to encourage further research into segmentation in medical tasks with high levels of subjectivity and to advance the understanding of pathologists' reasoning processes.

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought impressive performances on mitigation strategies against misinformation, such as counterargument generation. However, LLMs are still seriously hindered by outdated knowledge and by their tendency to generate hallucinated content. In order to circumvent these issues, we propose a new task, namely, Critical Questions Generation, consisting of processing an argumentative text to generate the critical questions (CQs) raised by it. In argumentation theory CQs are tools designed to lay bare the blind spots of an argument by pointing at the information it could be missing. Thus, instead of trying to deploy LLMs to produce knowledgeable and relevant counterarguments, we use them to question arguments, without requiring any external knowledge. Research on CQs Generation using LLMs requires a reference dataset for large scale experimentation. Thus, in this work we investigate two complementary methods to create such a resource: (i) instantiating CQs templates as defined by Walton's argumentation theory and (ii), using LLMs as CQs generators. By doing so, we contribute with a procedure to establish what is a valid CQ and conclude that, while LLMs are reasonable CQ generators, they still have a wide margin for improvement in this task.

Optimizing costly black-box functions within a constrained evaluation budget presents significant challenges in many real-world applications. Surrogate Optimization (SO) is a common resolution, yet its proprietary nature introduced by the complexity of surrogate models and the sampling core (e.g., acquisition functions) often leads to a lack of explainability and transparency. While existing literature has primarily concentrated on enhancing convergence to global optima, the practical interpretation of newly proposed strategies remains underexplored, especially in batch evaluation settings. In this paper, we propose \emph{Inclusive} Explainability Metrics for Surrogate Optimization (IEMSO), a comprehensive set of model-agnostic metrics designed to enhance the transparency, trustworthiness, and explainability of the SO approaches. Through these metrics, we provide both intermediate and post-hoc explanations to practitioners before and after performing expensive evaluations to gain trust. We consider four primary categories of metrics, each targeting a specific aspect of the SO process: Sampling Core Metrics, Batch Properties Metrics, Optimization Process Metrics, and Feature Importance. Our experimental evaluations demonstrate the significant potential of the proposed metrics across different benchmarks.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into educational environments, how can we ensure that these systems are both understandable and trustworthy? The growing demand for explainability in AI systems is a critical area of focus. This paper explores Human-Centric eXplainable AI (HCXAI) in the educational landscape, emphasizing its role in enhancing learning outcomes, fostering trust among users, and ensuring transparency in AI-driven tools, particularly through the innovative use of large language models (LLMs). What challenges arise in the implementation of explainable AI in educational contexts? It outlines comprehensive frameworks for developing HCXAI systems that prioritize user understanding and engagement, ensuring that educators and students can effectively interact with these technologies. Furthermore, what steps can educators, developers, and policymakers take to create more effective, inclusive, and ethically responsible AI solutions in education? The paper provides targeted recommendations to address this question, highlighting the necessity of prioritizing explainability. By doing so, how can we leverage AI's transformative potential to foster equitable and engaging educational experiences that support diverse learners? The rapid advancement of AI technologies has transformed various sectors, including education, by introducing innovative solutions that enhance teaching and learning experiences. In recent years, AI systems have increasingly been utilized for personalized learning, assessment, and feedback mechanisms (Maghsudi et al., 2021; Maity and Deroy, 2024a; Maity and Deroy, 2024b).

Counterfactual explanations have been a popular method of post-hoc explainability for a variety of settings in Machine Learning. Such methods focus on explaining classifiers by generating new data points that are similar to a given reference, while receiving a more desirable prediction. In this work, we investigate a framing for counterfactual generation methods that considers counterfactuals not as independent draws from a region around the reference, but as jointly sampled with the reference from the underlying data distribution. Through this framing, we derive a distance metric, tailored for counterfactual similarity that can be applied to a broad range of settings. Through both quantitative and qualitative analyses of counterfactual generation methods, we show that this framing allows us to express more nuanced dependencies among the covariates.

With the rapid advancements of various machine learning models, there is a significant demand for model-agnostic explanation techniques, which can explain these models across different architectures. Mainstream model-agnostic explanation techniques generate local explanations based on basic features (e.g., words for text models and (super-)pixels for image models). However, these explanations often do not align with the decision-making processes of the target models and end-users, resulting in explanations that are unfaithful and difficult for users to understand. On the other hand, concept-based techniques provide explanations based on high-level features (e.g., topics for text models and objects for image models), but most are model-specific or require additional pre-defined external concept knowledge. To address this limitation, we propose \toolname, a general framework to provide concept-based local explanations for any machine learning models. Our key insight is that we can automatically extract high-level concepts from large pre-trained models, and uniformly extend existing local model-agnostic techniques to provide unified concept-based explanations. We have instantiated \toolname on four different types of explanation techniques: LIME, Kernel SHAP, Anchor, and LORE, and applied these techniques to text and image models. Our evaluation results demonstrate that 1) compared to the vanilla versions, \toolname offers more faithful explanations and makes them more understandable to users, and 2) by offering multiple forms of explanations, \toolname outperforms state-of-the-art concept-based explanation techniques specifically designed for text and image models, respectively.

Visual counterfactual explanations (VCEs) have recently gained immense popularity as a tool for clarifying the decision-making process of image classifiers. This trend is largely motivated by what these explanations promise to deliver -- indicate semantically meaningful factors that change the classifier's decision. However, we argue that current state-of-the-art approaches lack a crucial component -- the region constraint -- whose absence prevents from drawing explicit conclusions, and may even lead to faulty reasoning due to phenomenons like confirmation bias. To address the issue of previous methods, which modify images in a very entangled and widely dispersed manner, we propose region-constrained VCEs (RVCEs), which assume that only a predefined image region can be modified to influence the model's prediction. To effectively sample from this subclass of VCEs, we propose Region-Constrained Counterfactual Schr\"odinger Bridges (RCSB), an adaptation of a tractable subclass of Schr\"odinger Bridges to the problem of conditional inpainting, where the conditioning signal originates from the classifier of interest. In addition to setting a new state-of-the-art by a large margin, we extend RCSB to allow for exact counterfactual reasoning, where the predefined region contains only the factor of interest, and incorporating the user to actively interact with the RVCE by predefining the regions manually.