We present ACME: A Chatbot for asylum-seeking Migrants tool that goes beyond the checklists used for handling well-defined, in Europe. ACME relies on computational argumentation and simple procedures since there is not only a problem of evaluating aims to help migrants identify the highest level of protection they legal and factual data, but there is also an issue with understanding can apply for. This would contribute to a more sustainable migration which procedures are relevant. Indeed, there is not only one type of by reducing the load on territorial commissions, Courts, and humanitarian protection but several ones. Importantly, since applicants may be political organizations supporting asylum applicants. We describe the refugees and victims of abuse, discrimination, and persecution, context, system architectures, technologies, and the case study used the collection and processing of their personal data for immigration to run the demonstration.

In the last years, there has been an effort to provide eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims at explanations to the ML model predictions using XAI providing understandable explanations of black (Lundberg & Lee, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2018; Alvarez-Melis box models. In this paper, we evaluate current & Jaakkola, 2018; Shrikumar et al., 2017). XAI methods by scoring them based on ground truth simulations and sensitivity analysis. To Most of these works, even if they focus on the robustness this end, we used an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) and trustworthiness of the XAI method, have the shortcoming model to better understand the limits and robustness that they can only be evaluated through surrogate characteristics of XAI methods such as SHapley measures (Crabbé & van der Schaar, 2023), and the ground Additive exPlanations (SHAP), Local Interpretable truth sensitivity of the evaluated datasets cannot be properly Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME), as calculated (Alvarez-Melis & Jaakkola, 2018). Some well as Averaged Local Effects (ALE) or Smooth existing approaches rather use data augmentation (Sun et al., Gradients (SG) in a highly topical setting. These 2020) or create measures estimating the importance of the XAI methods were applied to various types of features (Yeh et al., 2019); further related work is provided black-box models and then scored based on their in Section A.3. None of these systems, to the best of our correctness compared to the ground-truth sensitivity knowledge, consider the ground truth sensitivity, or gradient, of the data-generating processes using a novel of the data-generating process that created the dataset.

There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by assigning importance scores to other arguments but fail to explain how to change the current strength to a desired one. To solve this issue, we introduce counterfactual explanations for QBAFs. We discuss problem variants and propose an iterative algorithm named Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative bipolar Argumentation frameworks (CE-QArg). CE-QArg can identify valid and cost-effective counterfactual explanations based on two core modules, polarity and priority, which help determine the updating direction and magnitude for each argument, respectively. We discuss some formal properties of our counterfactual explanations and empirically evaluate CE-QArg on randomly generated QBAFs.

Argumentation is a formalism allowing to reason with contradictory information by modeling arguments and their interactions. There are now an increasing number of gradual semantics and impact measures that have emerged to facilitate the interpretation of their outcomes. An impact measure assesses, for each argument, the impact of other arguments on its score. In this paper, we refine an existing impact measure from Delobelle and Villata and introduce a new impact measure rooted in Shapley values. We introduce several principles to evaluate those two impact measures w.r.t. some well-known gradual semantics. This comprehensive analysis provides deeper insights into their functionality and desirability.

Machine learning models are increasingly used in areas such as loan approvals and hiring, yet they often function as black boxes, obscuring their decision-making processes. Transparency is crucial, and individuals need explanations to understand decisions, especially for the ones not desired by the user. Ethical and legal considerations require informing individuals of changes in input attribute values (features) that could lead to a desired outcome for the user. Our work aims to generate counterfactual explanations by considering causal dependencies between features. We present the CoGS (Counterfactual Generation with s(CASP)) framework that utilizes the goal-directed Answer Set Programming system s(CASP) to generate counterfactuals from rule-based machine learning models, specifically the FOLD-SE algorithm. CoGS computes realistic and causally consistent changes to attribute values taking causal dependencies between them into account. It finds a path from an undesired outcome to a desired one using counterfactuals.

The successful application of machine learning (ML) in catalyst design relies on high-quality and diverse data to ensure effective generalization to novel compositions, thereby aiding in catalyst discovery. However, due to complex interactions, catalyst design has long relied on trial-and-error, a costly and labor-intensive process leading to scarce data that is heavily biased towards undesired, low-yield catalysts. Despite the rise of ML in this field, most efforts have not focused on dealing with the challenges presented by such experimental data. To address these challenges, we introduce a robust machine learning and explainable AI (XAI) framework to accurately classify the catalytic yield of various compositions and identify the contributions of individual components. This framework combines a series of ML practices designed to handle the scarcity and imbalance of catalyst data. We apply the framework to classify the yield of various catalyst compositions in oxidative methane coupling, and use it to evaluate the performance of a range of ML models: tree-based models, logistic regression, support vector machines, and neural networks. These experiments demonstrate that the methods used in our framework lead to a significant improvement in the performance of all but one of the evaluated models. Additionally, the decision-making process of each ML model is analyzed by identifying the most important features for predicting catalyst performance using XAI methods. Our analysis found that XAI methods, providing class-aware explanations, such as Layer-wise Relevance Propagation, identified key components that contribute specifically to high-yield catalysts. These findings align with chemical intuition and existing literature, reinforcing their validity. We believe that such insights can assist chemists in the development and identification of novel catalysts with superior performance.

We study the problem of assessing the robustness of counterfactual explanations for deep learning models. We focus on $\textit{plausible model shifts}$ altering model parameters and propose a novel framework to reason about the robustness property in this setting. To motivate our solution, we begin by showing for the first time that computing the robustness of counterfactuals with respect to plausible model shifts is NP-complete. As this (practically) rules out the existence of scalable algorithms for exactly computing robustness, we propose a novel probabilistic approach which is able to provide tight estimates of robustness with strong guarantees while preserving scalability. Remarkably, and differently from existing solutions targeting plausible model shifts, our approach does not impose requirements on the network to be analyzed, thus enabling robustness analysis on a wider range of architectures. Experiments on four binary classification datasets indicate that our method improves the state of the art in generating robust explanations, outperforming existing methods on a range of metrics.

This second international workshop on explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) brought together a community of researchers in HCI, Interaction Design, AI, explainable AI (XAI), and digital arts to explore the role of XAI for the Arts. Workshop held at the 16th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C 2024), Chicago, USA.

The support of artificial intelligence (AI) based decision-making is a key element in future 6G networks, where the concept of native AI will be introduced. Moreover, AI is widely employed in different critical applications such as autonomous driving and medical diagnosis. In such applications, using AI as black-box models is risky and challenging. Hence, it is crucial to understand and trust the decisions taken by these models. Tackling this issue can be achieved by developing explainable AI (XAI) schemes that aim to explain the logic behind the black-box model behavior, and thus, ensure its efficient and safe deployment. Recently, we proposed a novel perturbation-based XAI-CHEST framework that is oriented toward channel estimation in wireless communications. The core idea of the XAI-CHEST framework is to identify the relevant model inputs by inducing high noise on the irrelevant ones. This manuscript provides the detailed theoretical foundations of the XAI-CHEST framework. In particular, we derive the analytical expressions of the XAI-CHEST loss functions and the noise threshold fine-tuning optimization problem. Hence the designed XAI-CHEST delivers a smart input feature selection methodology that can further improve the overall performance while optimizing the architecture of the employed model. Simulation results show that the XAI-CHEST framework provides valid interpretations, where it offers an improved bit error rate performance while reducing the required computational complexity in comparison to the classical DL-based channel estimation.

Reasoning with defeasible and conflicting knowledge in an argumentative form is a key research field in computational argumentation. Reasoning under various forms of uncertainty is both a key feature and a challenging barrier for automated argumentative reasoning. It was shown that argumentative reasoning using probabilities faces in general high computational complexity, in particular for the so-called constellation approach. In this paper, we develop an algorithmic approach to overcome this obstacle. We refine existing complexity results and show that two main reasoning tasks, that of computing the probability of a given set being an extension and an argument being acceptable, diverge in their complexity: the former is #P-complete and the latter is #-dot-NP-complete when considering their underlying counting problems. We present an algorithm for the complex task of computing the probability of a set of arguments being a complete extension by using dynamic programming operating on tree-decompositions. An experimental evaluation shows promise of our approach.