Massive deployment of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) in high-stake applications generates a strong demand for explanations that are robust to noise and align well with human intuition. Most existing methods generate explanations by identifying a subgraph of an input graph that has a strong correlation with the prediction. These explanations are not robust to noise because independently optimizing the correlation for a single input can easily overfit noise. Moreover, they are not counterfactual because removing an identified subgraph from an input graph does not necessarily change the prediction result. In this paper, we propose a novel method to generate robust counterfactual explanations on GNNs by explicitly modelling the common decision logic of GNNs on similar input graphs. Our explanations are naturally robust to noise because they are produced from the common decision boundaries of a GNN that govern the predictions of many similar input graphs.

Information Pursuit (IP) is a classical active testing algorithm for predicting an output by sequentially and greedily querying the input in order of information gain. However, IP is computationally intensive since it involves estimating mutual information in high-dimensional spaces. This paper explores Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) as an alternative to IP for greedily selecting the queries. OMP is a classical signal processing algorithm for sequentially encoding a signal in terms of dictionary atoms chosen in order of correlation gain. In each iteration, OMP selects the atom that is most correlated with the signal residual (the signal minus its reconstruction thus far).

Recent advances in machine learning have led to growing interest in Explainable AI (xAI) to enable humans to gain insight into the decision-making of machine learning models. Despite this recent interest, the utility of xAI techniques has not yet been characterized in human-machine teaming. Importantly, xAI offers the promise of enhancing team situational awareness (SA) and shared mental model development, which are the key characteristics of effective human-machine teams. Rapidly developing such mental models is especially critical in ad hoc human-machine teaming, where agents do not have a priori knowledge of others' decision-making strategies. First, we show that xAI techniques can support SA ( p 0.05) .

Visual Counterfactual Explanations (VCEs) are an important tool to understand the decisions of an image classifier. They are "small" but "realistic" semantic changes of the image changing the classifier decision. Current approaches for the generation of VCEs are restricted to adversarially robust models and often contain non-realistic artefacts, or are limited to image classification problems with few classes. In this paper, we overcome this by generating Diffusion Visual Counterfactual Explanations (DVCEs) for arbitrary ImageNet classifiers via a diffusion process. Two modifications to the diffusion process are key for our DVCEs: first, an adaptive parameterization, whose hyperparameters generalize across images and models, together with distance regularization and late start of the diffusion process, allow us to generate images with minimal semantic changes to the original ones but different classification.

Counterfactual explanations are emerging as an attractive option for providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions. As they are deployed in critical applications (e.g. law enforcement, financial lending), it becomes important to ensure that we clearly understand the vulnerabilties of these methods and find ways to address them. However, there is little understanding of the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of counterfactual explanations. In this work, we introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. More specifically, we show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust.

Faithfulness is arguably the most critical metric to assess the reliability of explainable AI. In NLP, current methods for faithfulness evaluation are fraught with discrepancies and biases, often failing to capture the true reasoning of models. We introduce Adversarial Sensitivity as a novel approach to faithfulness evaluation, focusing on the explainer's response when the model is under adversarial attack. Our method accounts for the faithfulness of explainers by capturing sensitivity to adversarial input changes. This work addresses significant limitations in existing evaluation techniques, and furthermore, quantifies faithfulness from a crucial yet underexplored paradigm.

This paper addresses a significant gap in explainable AI: the necessity of interpreting epistemic uncertainty in model explanations. Although current methods mainly focus on explaining predictions, with some including uncertainty, they fail to provide guidance on how to reduce the inherent uncertainty in these predictions. To overcome this challenge, we introduce new types of explanations that specifically target epistemic uncertainty. These include ensured explanations, which highlight feature modifications that can reduce uncertainty, and categorisation of uncertain explanations counter-potential, semi-potential, and super-potential which explore alternative scenarios. Our work emphasises that epistemic uncertainty adds a crucial dimension to explanation quality, demanding evaluation based not only on prediction probability but also on uncertainty reduction. We introduce a new metric, ensured ranking, designed to help users identify the most reliable explanations by balancing trade-offs between uncertainty, probability, and competing alternative explanations. Furthermore, we extend the Calibrated Explanations method, incorporating tools that visualise how changes in feature values impact epistemic uncertainty. This enhancement provides deeper insights into model behaviour, promoting increased interpretability and appropriate trust in scenarios involving uncertain predictions.

Counterfactual explanations (CE) identify data points that closely resemble the observed data but produce different machine learning (ML) model outputs, offering critical insights into model decisions. Despite the diverse scenarios, goals and tasks to which they are tailored, existing CE methods often lack actionable efficiency because of unnecessary feature changes included within the explanations that are presented to users and stakeholders. We address this problem by proposing a method that minimizes the required feature changes while maintaining the validity of CE, without imposing restrictions on models or CE algorithms, whether instance- or group-based. The key innovation lies in computing a joint distribution between observed and counterfactual data and leveraging it to inform Shapley values for feature attributions (FA). We demonstrate that optimal transport (OT) effectively derives this distribution, especially when the alignment between observed and counterfactual data is unclear in used CE methods. Additionally, a counterintuitive finding is uncovered: it may be misleading to rely on an exact alignment defined by the CE generation mechanism in conducting FA. Our proposed method is validated on extensive experiments across multiple datasets, showcasing its effectiveness in refining CE towards greater actionable efficiency.

Provenance in databases has been thoroughly studied for positive and for recursive queries, then for first-order (FO) queries, i.e., having negation but no recursion. Query evaluation can be understood as a two-player game where the opponents argue whether or not a tuple is in the query answer. This game-theoretic approach yields a natural provenance model for FO queries, unifying how and why-not provenance. Here, we study the fine-grain structure of game provenance. A game $G=(V,E)$ consists of positions $V$ and moves $E$ and can be solved by computing the well-founded model of a single, unstratifiable rule: \[ \text{win}(X) \leftarrow \text{move}(X, Y), \neg \, \text{win}(Y). \] In the solved game $G^{\lambda}$, the value of a position $x\,{\in}\,V$ is either won, lost, or drawn. This value is explained by the provenance $\mathscr{P}$(x), i.e., certain (annotated) edges reachable from $x$. We identify seven edge types that give rise to new kinds of provenance, i.e., potential, actual, and primary, and demonstrate that "not all moves are created equal". We describe the new provenance types, show how they can be computed while solving games, and discuss applications, e.g., for abstract argumentation frameworks.

Shapley values are a popular model-agnostic explanation framework for explaining predictions made by complex machine learning models. The framework provides feature contribution scores that sum to the predicted response and represent each feature's importance. The computation of exact Shapley values is computationally expensive due to estimating an exponential amount of non-trivial conditional expectations. The KernelSHAP framework enables us to approximate the Shapley values using a sampled subset of weighted conditional expectations. We propose three main novel contributions: a stabilizing technique to reduce the variance of the weights in the current state-of-the-art strategy, a novel weighing scheme that corrects the Shapley kernel weights based on sampled subsets, and a straightforward strategy that includes the important subsets and integrates them with the corrected Shapley kernel weights. We compare these new approximation strategies against existing ones by evaluating their Shapley value accuracy as a function of the number of subsets. The results demonstrate that our sampling strategies significantly enhance the accuracy of the approximated Shapley value explanations, making them more reliable in practical applications. This work provides valuable insights and practical recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking to implement Shapley value-based explainability of their models.