People's decision-making abilities often fail to improve or may even erode when they rely on AI for decision-support, even when the AI provides informative explanations. We argue this is partly because people intuitively seek contrastive explanations, which clarify the difference between the AI's decision and their own reasoning, while most AI systems offer "unilateral" explanations that justify the AI's decision but do not account for users' thinking. To align human-AI knowledge on decision tasks, we introduce a framework for generating human-centered contrastive explanations that explain the difference between AI's choice and a predicted, likely human choice about the same task. Results from a large-scale experiment (N = 628) demonstrate that contrastive explanations significantly enhance users' independent decision-making skills compared to unilateral explanations, without sacrificing decision accuracy. Amid rising deskilling concerns, our research demonstrates that incorporating human reasoning into AI design can foster human skill development.

Unsupervised rationale extraction aims to extract text snippets to support model predictions without explicit rationale annotation. Researchers have made many efforts to solve this task. Previous works often encode each aspect independently, which may limit their ability to capture meaningful internal correlations between aspects. While there has been significant work on mitigating spurious correlations, our approach focuses on leveraging the beneficial internal correlations to improve multi-aspect rationale extraction. In this paper, we propose a Multi-Aspect Rationale Extractor (MARE) to explain and predict multiple aspects simultaneously. Concretely, we propose a Multi-Aspect Multi-Head Attention (MAMHA) mechanism based on hard deletion to encode multiple text chunks simultaneously. Furthermore, multiple special tokens are prepended in front of the text with each corresponding to one certain aspect. Finally, multi-task training is deployed to reduce the training overhead. Experimental results on two unsupervised rationale extraction benchmarks show that MARE achieves state-of-the-art performance. Ablation studies further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Our codes have been available at https://github.com/CSU-NLP-Group/MARE.

AI can help improve railway safety by enabling automated inspections of tracks, crossties, ballasts and retaining walls. Researchers at EPFL's Intelligent Maintenance and Operations Systems (IMOS) Laboratory have developed an AI-driven method that improves the efficiency of crack detection in concrete structures. Their research, recently published in Automation in Construction, introduces a novel method that employs explainable artificial intelligence, or a form of AI which allows users to understand the basis of AI decisions. "We trained an algorithm to differentiate between images with and without cracks in concrete walls [a binary classification task] by feeding it hundreds of image samples from both categories. Then we asked the algorithm to highlight which pixels it used to make its decision," says Florent Forest, a scientist at the IMOS lab and the study's lead author.

The proliferation of fake news has emerged as a significant threat to the integrity of information dissemination, particularly on social media platforms. Misinformation can spread quickly due to the ease of creating and disseminating content, affecting public opinion and sociopolitical events. Identifying false information is therefore essential to reducing its negative consequences and maintaining the reliability of online news sources. Traditional approaches to fake news detection often rely solely on content-based features, overlooking the crucial role of social context in shaping the perception and propagation of news articles. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive approach that integrates social context-based features with news content features to enhance the accuracy of fake news detection in under-resourced languages. We perform several experiments utilizing a variety of methodologies, including traditional machine learning, neural networks, ensemble learning, and transfer learning. Assessment of the outcomes of the experiments shows that the ensemble learning approach has the highest accuracy, achieving a 0.99 F1 score. Additionally, when compared with monolingual models, the fine-tuned model with the target language outperformed others, achieving a 0.94 F1 score. We analyze the functioning of the models, considering the important features that contribute to model performance, using explainable AI techniques.

The explainability of a robot's actions is crucial to its acceptance in social spaces. Explaining why a robot fails to complete a given task is particularly important for non-expert users to be aware of the robot's capabilities and limitations. So far, research on explaining robot failures has only considered generating textual explanations, even though several studies have shown the benefits of multimodal ones. However, a simple combination of multiple modalities may lead to semantic incoherence between the information across different modalities - a problem that is not well-studied. An incoherent multimodal explanation can be difficult to understand, and it may even become inconsistent with what the robot and the human observe and how they perform reasoning with the observations. Such inconsistencies may lead to wrong conclusions about the robot's capabilities. In this paper, we introduce an approach to generate coherent multimodal explanations by checking the logical coherence of explanations from different modalities, followed by refinements as required. We propose a classification approach for coherence assessment, where we evaluate if an explanation logically follows another. Our experiments suggest that fine-tuning a neural network that was pre-trained to recognize textual entailment, performs well for coherence assessment of multimodal explanations. Code & data: https://pradippramanick.github.io/coherent-explain/.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques are used to provide transparency to complex, opaque predictive models. However, these techniques are often designed for image and text data, and it is unclear how fit-for-purpose they are when applied to tabular data. As XAI techniques are rarely evaluated in settings with tabular data, the applicability of existing evaluation criteria and methods are also unclear and needs (re-)examination. For example, some works suggest that evaluation methods may unduly influence the evaluation results when using tabular data. This lack of clarity on evaluation procedures can lead to reduced transparency and ineffective use of XAI techniques in real world settings. In this study, we examine literature on XAI evaluation to derive guidelines on functionally-grounded assessment of local, post hoc XAI techniques. We identify 20 evaluation criteria and associated evaluation methods, and derive guidelines on when and how each criterion should be evaluated. We also identify key research gaps to be addressed by future work. Our study contributes to the body of knowledge on XAI evaluation through in-depth examination of functionally-grounded XAI evaluation protocols, and has laid the groundwork for future research on XAI evaluation.

An abstract argumentation framework is a commonly used formalism to provide a static representation of a dialogue. However, the order of enunciation of the arguments in an argumentative dialogue is very important and can affect the outcome of this dialogue. In this paper, we propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs, a model that incorporates the order of enunciation of arguments. By taking this order into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue, called an extension. We also establish several properties, such as termination and correctness, and discuss two notions of completeness. In particular, we propose a modification of the previous transformation based on a "last enunciated last updated" strategy, which verifies the second form of completeness.

However, precisely because of the definition of such a task, the result is an artefact that, unless explicitly designed to be transparent, is often not interpretable or, hence, trustworthy (Zhang et al., 2021; Lipton, 2017). This is where the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) shines through. A model explanation is an exercise in communication between a sender or source (i.e. the model or one of its components) and a receiver (i.e. the explainee, a human or another processor for a downstream task) that describes the relevant context or the causes surrounding some facts (Lewis, 1986; Miller, 2019; Wright, 2004), which in the context of AI is often related to its final or intermediary outputs or decisions. Any such communicative act can be considered an explanation, but not all explanations may be useful or even desirable. According to empirical studies (Slugoski et al., 1993), it can be argued that the form of an explanation must depend on its function as an answer to a question within a conversational framework. Furthermore, in the words of Herbert Paul Grice (Grice, 1975), for a communicative act to be useful, four maxims should be followed: 1. Manner: the message or explanans should be comprehensible and clear to the receiver, which within the context of XAI is often referred to as interpretability (Lipton, 2017), 2. Quality: the message contains truthful information; in the context of XAI, reliability or explanation verification (Zhou et al., 2021b; Slack et al., 2021; Arias-Duart et al., 2022), 3. Quantity: the length of a message should be just enough to be informative, often a heuristic implicitly agreed upon in the design of explainable systems which depends on both the sender and the code it uses, and 4. Relation: the explanation should be relevant to the given context, significant when one can keep searching for causes of causes beyond the scope of relevance.

Explanation is key to people having confidence in high-stakes AI systems. However, machine-learning-based systems -- which account for almost all current AI -- can't explain because they are usually black boxes. The explainable AI (XAI) movement hedges this problem by redefining "explanation". The human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) movement identifies the explanation-oriented needs of users but can't fulfill them because of its commitment to machine learning. In order to achieve the kinds of explanations needed by real people operating in critical domains, we must rethink how to approach AI. We describe a hybrid approach to developing cognitive agents that uses a knowledge-based infrastructure supplemented by data obtained through machine learning when applicable. These agents will serve as assistants to humans who will bear ultimate responsibility for the decisions and actions of the human-robot team. We illustrate the explanatory potential of such agents using the under-the-hood panels of a demonstration system in which a team of simulated robots collaborate on a search task assigned by a human.

While Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make AI understandable and useful to humans, it has been criticised for relying too much on formalism and solutionism, focusing more on mathematical soundness than user needs. We propose an alternative to this bottom-up approach inspired by design thinking: the XAI research community should adopt a top-down, user-focused perspective to ensure user relevance. We illustrate this with a relatively young subfield of XAI, Training Data Attribution (TDA). With the surge in TDA research and growing competition, the field risks repeating the same patterns of solutionism. We conducted a needfinding study with a diverse group of AI practitioners to identify potential user needs related to TDA. Through interviews (N=10) and a systematic survey (N=31), we uncovered new TDA tasks that are currently largely overlooked. We invite the TDA and XAI communities to consider these novel tasks and improve the user relevance of their research outcomes.