In Explainable AI (XAI), counterfactual explanations (CEs) are a well-studied method to communicate feature relevance through contrastive reasoning of "what if" to explain AI models' predictions. However, they only focus on important (i.e., relevant) features and largely disregard less important (i.e., irrelevant) ones. Such irrelevant features can be crucial in many applications, especially when users need to ensure that an AI model's decisions are not affected or biased against specific attributes such as gender, race, religion, or political affiliation. To address this gap, the concept of alterfactual explanations (AEs) has been proposed. AEs explore an alternative reality of "no matter what", where irrelevant features are substituted with alternative features (e.g., "republicans" -> "democrats") within the same attribute (e.g., "politics") while maintaining a similar prediction output. This serves to validate whether AI model predictions are influenced by the specified attributes. Despite the promise of AEs, there is a lack of computational approaches to systematically generate them, particularly in the text domain, where creating AEs for AI text classifiers presents unique challenges. This paper addresses this challenge by formulating AE generation as an optimization problem and introducing MoMatterXAI, a novel algorithm that generates AEs for text classification tasks. Our approach achieves high fidelity of up to 95% while preserving context similarity of over 90% across multiple models and datasets. A human study further validates the effectiveness of AEs in explaining AI text classifiers to end users. All codes will be publicly available.

Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that allow AFs to be evaluated. For more expressiveness, AFs are augmented with \emph{acceptance conditions} on directly interacting arguments or a constraint on the admissible sets of arguments, resulting in dialectic frameworks or constrained argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider flexible conditions for \emph{rejecting} an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs). On the technical level, we associate each argument with a specific logic program. We analyze the resulting complexity, including the structural parameter treewidth. Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

We propose an interactive methodology for generating counterfactual explanations for univariate time series data in classification tasks by leveraging 2D projections and decision boundary maps to tackle interpretability challenges. Our approach aims to enhance the transparency and understanding of deep learning models' decision processes. The application simplifies the time series data analysis by enabling users to interactively manipulate projected data points, providing intuitive insights through inverse projection techniques. By abstracting user interactions with the projected data points rather than the raw time series data, our method facilitates an intuitive generation of counterfactual explanations. This approach allows for a more straightforward exploration of univariate time series data, enabling users to manipulate data points to comprehend potential outcomes of hypothetical scenarios. We validate this method using the ECG5000 benchmark dataset, demonstrating significant improvements in interpretability and user understanding of time series classification. The results indicate a promising direction for enhancing explainable AI, with potential applications in various domains requiring transparent and interpretable deep learning models. Future work will explore the scalability of this method to multivariate time series data and its integration with other interpretability techniques.

The availability of easy-to-use and reliable software implementations is important for allowing researchers in academia and industry to test, assess and take into use eXplainable AI (XAI) methods. This paper describes the \texttt{py-ciu} Python implementation of the Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU) model-agnostic, post-hoc explanation method and illustrates capabilities of CIU that go beyond the current state-of-the-art that could be useful for XAI practitioners in general.

As machine learning (ML) models and datasets increase in complexity, the demand for methods that enhance explainability and interpretability becomes paramount. Prototypes, by encapsulating essential characteristics within data, offer insights that enable tactical decision-making and enhance transparency. Traditional prototype methods often rely on sub-symbolic raw data and opaque latent spaces, reducing explainability and increasing the risk of misinterpretations. This paper presents a novel framework that utilizes semantic descriptions to define prototypes and provide clear explanations, effectively addressing the shortcomings of conventional methods. Our approach leverages concept-based descriptions to cluster data on the semantic level, ensuring that prototypes not only represent underlying properties intuitively but are also straightforward to interpret. Our method simplifies the interpretative process and effectively bridges the gap between complex data structures and human cognitive processes, thereby enhancing transparency and fostering trust. Our approach outperforms existing widely-used prototype methods in facilitating human understanding and informativeness, as validated through a user survey.

Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is advocated as a unifying formalism for various forms of non-monotonic reasoning, including logic programming. It allows capturing defeasible knowledge, subject to argumentative debate. While, in much existing work, ABA frameworks are given up-front, in this paper we focus on the problem of automating their learning from background knowledge and positive/negative examples. Unlike prior work, we newly frame the problem in terms of brave reasoning under stable extensions for ABA. We present a novel algorithm based on transformation rules (such as Rote Learning, Folding, Assumption Introduction and Fact Subsumption) and an implementation thereof that makes use of Answer Set Programming. Finally, we compare our technique to state-of-the-art ILP systems that learn defeasible knowledge.

Transparency in automated systems could be afforded through the provision of intelligible explanations. While transparency is desirable, might it lead to catastrophic outcomes (such as anxiety), that could outweigh its benefits? It's quite unclear how the specificity of explanations (level of transparency) influences recipients, especially in autonomous driving (AD). In this work, we examined the effects of transparency mediated through varying levels of explanation specificity in AD. We first extended a data-driven explainer model by adding a rule-based option for explanation generation in AD, and then conducted a within-subject lab study with 39 participants in an immersive driving simulator to study the effect of the resulting explanations. Specifically, our investigation focused on: (1) how different types of explanations (specific vs. abstract) affect passengers' perceived safety, anxiety, and willingness to take control of the vehicle when the vehicle perception system makes erroneous predictions; and (2) the relationship between passengers' behavioural cues and their feelings during the autonomous drives. Our findings showed that passengers felt safer with specific explanations when the vehicle's perception system had minimal errors, while abstract explanations that hid perception errors led to lower feelings of safety. Anxiety levels increased when specific explanations revealed perception system errors (high transparency). We found no significant link between passengers' visual patterns and their anxiety levels. Our study suggests that passengers prefer clear and specific explanations (high transparency) when they originate from autonomous vehicles (AVs) with optimal perceptual accuracy.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in enhancing the transparency and accountability of AI models, particularly in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, popular XAI methods such as LIME and SHAP have been found to be unstable and potentially misleading, underscoring the need for a standardized evaluation approach. This paper introduces SCENE (Soft Counterfactual Evaluation for Natural language Explainability), a novel evaluation method that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate Soft Counterfactual explanations in a zero-shot manner. By focusing on token-based substitutions, SCENE creates contextually appropriate and semantically meaningful Soft Counterfactuals without extensive fine-tuning. SCENE adopts Validitysoft and Csoft metrics to assess the effectiveness of model-agnostic XAI methods in text classification tasks. Applied to CNN, RNN, and Transformer architectures, SCENE provides valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of various XAI techniques.

Argument mining is natural language processing technology aimed at identifying arguments in text. Furthermore, the approach is being developed to identify the premises and claims of those arguments, and to identify the relationships between arguments including support and attack relationships. In this paper, we assume that an argument map contains the premises and claims of arguments, and support and attack relationships between them, that have been identified by argument mining. So from a piece of text, we assume an argument map is obtained automatically by natural language processing. However, to understand and to automatically analyse that argument map, it would be desirable to instantiate that argument map with logical arguments. Once we have the logical representation of the arguments in an argument map, we can use automated reasoning to analyze the argumentation (e.g. check consistency of premises, check validity of claims, and check the labelling on each arc corresponds with thw logical arguments). We address this need by using classical logic for representing the explicit information in the text, and using default logic for representing the implicit information in the text. In order to investigate our proposal, we consider some specific options for instantiation.

Dung's Abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a key formalism for argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. It has been extended in several directions, including the possibility to express supports, leading to the development of the Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF), and recursive attacks and supports, resulting in the Recursive BAF (Rec-BAF). Different interpretations of supports have been proposed, whereas for Rec-BAF (where the target of attacks and supports may also be attacks and supports) even different semantics for attacks have been defined. However, the semantics of these frameworks have either not been defined in the presence of support cycles, or are often quite intricate in terms of the involved definitions. We encompass this limitation and present classical semantics for general BAF and Rec-BAF and show that the semantics for specific BAF and Rec-BAF frameworks can be defined by very simple and intuitive modifications of that defined for the case of AF. This is achieved by providing a modular definition of the sets of defeated and acceptable elements for each AF-based framework. We also characterize, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of general BAF and Rec-BAF in terms of logic programming and partial stable model semantics.