Counterfactual explanations of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) offer a powerful way to understand data that can naturally be represented by a graph structure. Furthermore, in many domains, it is highly desirable to derive data-driven global explanations or rules that can better explain the high-level properties of the models and data in question. However, evaluating global counterfactual explanations is hard in real-world datasets due to a lack of human-annotated ground truth, which limits their use in areas like molecular sciences. Additionally, the increasing scale of these datasets provides a challenge for random search-based methods. In this paper, we develop a novel global explanation model RLHEX for molecular property prediction. It aligns the counterfactual explanations with human-defined principles, making the explanations more interpretable and easy for experts to evaluate. RLHEX includes a VAE-based graph generator to generate global explanations and an adapter to adjust the latent representation space to human-defined principles. Optimized by Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), the global explanations produced by RLHEX cover 4.12% more input graphs and reduce the distance between the counterfactual explanation set and the input set by 0.47% on average across three molecular datasets. RLHEX provides a flexible framework to incorporate different human-designed principles into the counterfactual explanation generation process, aligning these explanations with domain expertise. The code and data are released at https://github.com/dqwang122/RLHEX.

AI is becoming increasingly common across different domains. However, as sophisticated AI-based systems are often blackboxed, rendering the decision-making logic opaque, users find it challenging to comply with their recommendations. Although researchers are investigating Explainable AI (XAI) to increase the transparency of the underlying machine learning models, it is unclear what types of explanations are effective and what other factors increase compliance. To better understand the interplay of these factors, we conducted an experiment with 562 participants, who were presented with the recommendations of an AI and two different types of XAI. We find that users' compliance increases with the introduction of XAI but is also affected by AI literacy. We also find that the relationships between AI literacy, XAI, and users' compliance are mediated by the users' mental model of AI. Our study has several implications for successfully designing AI-based systems utilizing XAI.

Prior research in computational argumentation has mainly focused on scoring the quality of arguments, with less attention on explicating logical errors. In this work, we introduce four sets of explainable templates for common informal logical fallacies designed to explicate a fallacy's implicit logic. Using our templates, we conduct an annotation study on top of 400 fallacious arguments taken from LOGIC dataset and achieve a high agreement score (Krippendorf's alpha of 0.54) and reasonable coverage (0.83). Finally, we conduct an experiment for detecting the structure of fallacies and discover that state-of-the-art language models struggle with detecting fallacy templates (0.47 accuracy). To facilitate research on fallacies, we make our dataset and guidelines publicly available.

We formulate discussion graph semantics of first-order logic with equality for reasoning about discussion and argumentation as naturally as we would reason about sentences. While there are a few existing proposals to use a formal logic for reasoning about argumentation, they are constructed bottom-up and specialised to the argumentation model by Dung. There is indeed a conspicuous lack of a formal reasoning framework for handling general discussion and argumentation models. We achieve the generality through a top-down formulation of the semantics of first-order logic (with equality) formulas, addressing the current shortage.

AI&Law as a field started started in the 1970s, when Buchanan and Headrick (1970) suggested Law has been an attractive domain for AI in both that computer modeling of legal reasoning would symbolic knowledge representation and statistical be a promising area for research to better understand NLP. Both strands share the common goal of supporting legal reasoning and argumentation. Many legal practice through enhancing legal research, approaches have been proposed over the past three document analysis, drafting, and decision decades capturing several types of reasoning by making. A focal question distinguishing them remains means of symbolic representations. Some 50 years whether, and how, the process of legal reasoning after the field's beginnings, the legal profession is underlying all textual data shall be explicitly experiencing considerable disruption by NLP technology, represented or left to opaque components, such as most prominently large language models generative language models or neural classifiers.

In an October 2023 executive order (EO), President Biden issued a detailed but largely aspirational road map for the safe and responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). The challenge for the January 24-25, 2024 workshop was to transform those aspirations regarding one specific but crucial issue -- the ability of individuals to challenge government decisions made about themselves -- into actionable guidance enabling agencies to develop, procure, and use genuinely contestable advanced automated decision-making systems. While the Administration has taken important steps since the October 2023 EO, the insights garnered from our workshop remain highly relevant, as the requirements for contestability of advanced decision-making systems are not yet fully defined or implemented. The workshop brought together technologists, members of government agencies and civil society organizations, litigators, and researchers in an intensive two-day meeting that examined the challenges that users, developers, and agencies faced in enabling contestability in light of advanced automated decision-making systems. To ensure a free and open flow of discussion, the meeting was held under a modified version of the Chatham House rule. Participants were free to use any information or details that they learned, but they may not attribute any remarks made at the meeting by the identity or the affiliation of the speaker. Thus, the workshop summary that follows anonymizes speakers and their affiliation. Where an identification of an agency, company, or organization is made, it is done from a public, identified resource and does not necessarily reflect statements made by participants at the workshop. This document is a report of that workshop, along with recommendations and explanatory material.

A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. "Explainability" has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous "box-ticking" exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.

We study the robustness of global post-hoc explanations for predictive models trained on tabular data. Effects of predictor features in black-box supervised learning are an essential diagnostic tool for model debugging and scientific discovery in applied sciences. However, how vulnerable they are to data and model perturbations remains an open research question. We introduce several theoretical bounds for evaluating the robustness of partial dependence plots and accumulated local effects. Our experimental results with synthetic and real-world datasets quantify the gap between the best and worst-case scenarios of (mis)interpreting machine learning predictions globally.

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly accelerated its influence and is expected to promote the development of Earth system science (ESS) if properly harnessed. In application of AI to ESS, a significant hurdle lies in the interpretability conundrum, an inherent problem of black-box nature arising from the complexity of AI algorithms. To address this, explainable AI (XAI) offers a set of powerful tools that make the models more transparent. The purpose of this review is twofold: First, to provide ESS scholars, especially newcomers, with a foundational understanding of XAI, serving as a primer to inspire future research advances; second, to encourage ESS professionals to embrace the benefits of AI, free from preconceived biases due to its lack of interpretability. We begin with elucidating the concept of XAI, along with typical methods. We then delve into a review of XAI applications in the ESS literature, highlighting the important role that XAI has played in facilitating communication with AI model decisions, improving model diagnosis, and uncovering scientific insights. We identify four significant challenges that XAI faces within the ESS, and propose solutions. Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive illustration of multifaceted perspectives. Given the unique challenges in ESS, an interpretable hybrid approach that seamlessly integrates AI with domain-specific knowledge appears to be a promising way to enhance the utility of AI in ESS. A visionary outlook for ESS envisions a harmonious blend where process-based models govern the known, AI models explore the unknown, and XAI bridges the gap by providing explanations.

Image classification is a primary task in data analysis where explainable models are crucially demanded in various applications. Although amounts of methods have been proposed to obtain explainable knowledge from the black-box classifiers, these approaches lack the efficiency of extracting global knowledge regarding the classification task, thus is vulnerable to local traps and often leads to poor accuracy. In this study, we propose a generative explanation model that combines the advantages of global and local knowledge for explaining image classifiers. We develop a representation learning method called class association embedding (CAE), which encodes each sample into a pair of separated class-associated and individual codes. Recombining the individual code of a given sample with altered class-associated code leads to a synthetic real-looking sample with preserved individual characters but modified class-associated features and possibly flipped class assignments. A building-block coherency feature extraction algorithm is proposed that efficiently separates class-associated features from individual ones. The extracted feature space forms a low-dimensional manifold that visualizes the classification decision patterns. Explanation on each individual sample can be then achieved in a counter-factual generation manner which continuously modifies the sample in one direction, by shifting its class-associated code along a guided path, until its classification outcome is changed. We compare our method with state-of-the-art ones on explaining image classification tasks in the form of saliency maps, demonstrating that our method achieves higher accuracies. The code is available at https://github.com/xrt11/XAI-CODE.