Machine learning (ML) methods have experienced significant growth in the past decade, yet their practical application in high-impact real-world domains has been hindered by their opacity. When ML methods are responsible for making critical decisions, stakeholders often require insights into how to alter these decisions. Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) have emerged as a solution, offering interpretations of opaque ML models and providing a pathway to transition from one decision to another. However, most existing CFE methods require access to the model's training dataset, few methods can handle multivariate time-series, and none can handle multivariate time-series without training datasets. These limitations can be formidable in many scenarios. In this paper, we present CFWoT, a novel reinforcement-learning-based CFE method that generates CFEs when training datasets are unavailable. CFWoT is model-agnostic and suitable for both static and multivariate time-series datasets with continuous and discrete features. Users have the flexibility to specify non-actionable, immutable, and preferred features, as well as causal constraints which CFWoT guarantees will be respected. We demonstrate the performance of CFWoT against four baselines on several datasets and find that, despite not having access to a training dataset, CFWoT finds CFEs that make significantly fewer and significantly smaller changes to the input time-series. These properties make CFEs more actionable, as the magnitude of change required to alter an outcome is vastly reduced.

Growing regulatory and societal pressures demand increased transparency in AI, particularly in understanding the decisions made by complex machine learning models. Counterfactual Explanations (CFs) have emerged as a promising technique within Explainable AI (xAI), offering insights into individual model predictions. However, to understand the systemic biases and disparate impacts of AI models, it is crucial to move beyond local CFs and embrace global explanations, which offer a holistic view across diverse scenarios and populations. Unfortunately, generating Global Counterfactual Explanations (GCEs) faces challenges in computational complexity, defining the scope of "global," and ensuring the explanations are both globally representative and locally plausible. We introduce a novel unified approach for generating Local, Group-wise, and Global Counterfactual Explanations for differentiable classification models via gradient-based optimization to address these challenges. This framework aims to bridge the gap between individual and systemic insights, enabling a deeper understanding of model decisions and their potential impact on diverse populations.

We present PPCEF, a novel method for generating probabilistically plausible counterfactual explanations (CFs). PPCEF advances beyond existing methods by combining a probabilistic formulation that leverages the data distribution with the optimization of plausibility within a unified framework. Compared to reference approaches, our method enforces plausibility by directly optimizing the explicit density function without assuming a particular family of parametrized distributions. This ensures CFs are not only valid (i.e., achieve class change) but also align with the underlying data's probability density. For that purpose, our approach leverages normalizing flows as powerful density estimators to capture the complex high-dimensional data distribution. Furthermore, we introduce a novel loss that balances the trade-off between achieving class change and maintaining closeness to the original instance while also incorporating a probabilistic plausibility term. PPCEF's unconstrained formulation allows for efficient gradient-based optimization with batch processing, leading to orders of magnitude faster computation compared to prior methods. Moreover, the unconstrained formulation of PPCEF allows for the seamless integration of future constraints tailored to specific counterfactual properties. Finally, extensive evaluations demonstrate PPCEF's superiority in generating high-quality, probabilistically plausible counterfactual explanations in high-dimensional tabular settings. This makes PPCEF a powerful tool for not only interpreting complex machine learning models but also for improving fairness, accountability, and trust in AI systems.

Increasing evidence suggests that many deployed AI systems do not sufficiently support end-user interaction and information needs. Engaging end-users in the design of these systems can reveal user needs and expectations, yet effective ways of engaging end-users in the AI explanation design remain under-explored. To address this gap, we developed a design method, called AI-DEC, that defines four dimensions of AI explanations that are critical for the integration of AI systems -- communication content, modality, frequency, and direction -- and offers design examples for end-users to design AI explanations that meet their needs. We evaluated this method through co-design sessions with workers in healthcare, finance, and management industries who regularly use AI systems in their daily work. Findings indicate that the AI-DEC effectively supported workers in designing explanations that accommodated diverse levels of performance and autonomy needs, which varied depending on the AI system's workplace role and worker values. We discuss the implications of using the AI-DEC for the user-centered design of AI explanations in real-world systems.

This paper addresses the challenge of selecting explanations for XAI (Explainable AI)-based Intelligent Decision Support Systems (IDSSs). IDSSs have shown promise in improving user decisions through XAI-generated explanations along with AI predictions, and the development of XAI made it possible to generate a variety of such explanations. However, how IDSSs should select explanations to enhance user decision-making remains an open question. This paper proposes X-Selector, a method for selectively presenting XAI explanations. It enables IDSSs to strategically guide users to an AI-suggested decision by predicting the impact of different combinations of explanations on a user's decision and selecting the combination that is expected to minimize the discrepancy between an AI suggestion and a user decision. We compared the efficacy of X-Selector with two naive strategies (all possible explanations and explanations only for the most likely prediction) and two baselines (no explanation and no AI support). The results suggest the potential of X-Selector to guide users to AI-suggested decisions and improve task performance under the condition of a high AI accuracy.

This article uses machine learning (ML) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to investigate the relationship between nutritional status and mortality rates associated with Alzheimers disease (AD). The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) database is employed for analysis. The random forest model is selected as the base model for XAI analysis, and the Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) method is used to assess feature importance. The results highlight significant nutritional factors such as serum vitamin B12 and glycated hemoglobin. The study demonstrates the effectiveness of random forests in predicting AD mortality compared to other diseases. This research provides insights into the impact of nutrition on AD and contributes to a deeper understanding of disease progression.

Machine learning models that automate decision-making are increasingly used in consequential areas such as loan approvals, pretrial bail approval, and hiring. Unfortunately, most of these models are black boxes, i.e., they are unable to reveal how they reach these prediction decisions. A need for transparency demands justification for such predictions. An affected individual might also desire explanations to understand why a decision was made. Ethical and legal considerations require informing the individual of changes in the input attribute (s) that could be made to produce a desirable outcome. Our work focuses on the latter problem of generating counterfactual explanations by considering the causal dependencies between features. In this paper, we present the framework CFGs, CounterFactual Generation with s(CASP), which utilizes the goal-directed Answer Set Programming (ASP) system s(CASP) to automatically generate counterfactual explanations from models generated by rule-based machine learning algorithms in particular. We benchmark CFGs with the FOLD-SE model. Reaching the counterfactual state from the initial state is planned and achieved using a series of interventions. To validate our proposal, we show how counterfactual explanations are computed and justified by imagining worlds where some or all factual assumptions are altered/changed. More importantly, we show how CFGs navigates between these worlds, namely, go from our initial state where we obtain an undesired outcome to the imagined goal state where we obtain the desired decision, taking into account the causal relationships among features.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to influence our daily lives, the need for interpretability and transparency increases. This need for comprehensive explanations has been accelerated partly by the legislative initiatives such as the General Data Protection Regulation, the European Union AI Act, and the US Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (EUR-Lex, 2016, 2021; OSTP, 2022). These regulations emphasize the necessity of providing clear and understandable explanations for automated systems, echoing society's demand for trustworthy AI and aligning with the right for explanation principle. These developments have attracted the attention of the researchers in machine learning who have started to develop algorithms that pave the way for explainable AI (XAI) (Biran and Cotton, 2017). Among these efforts, the concept of counterfactual explanations (CEs) has emerged as one of the key approaches in XAI to understanding the inner workings of complex AI models (Wachter et al., 2018; Maragno et al., 2022). CEs aim to identify the (smallest) change in personal data that would lead to a desired model outcome.

To increase the transparency of modern computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems for assessing the malignancy of lung nodules, an interpretable model based on applying the generalized additive models and the concept-based learning is proposed. The model detects a set of clinically significant attributes in addition to the final malignancy regression score and learns the association between the lung nodule attributes and a final diagnosis decision as well as their contributions into the decision. The proposed concept-based learning framework provides human-readable explanations in terms of different concepts (numerical and categorical), their values, and their contribution to the final prediction. Numerical experiments with the LIDC-IDRI dataset demonstrate that the diagnosis results obtained using the proposed model, which explicitly explores internal relationships, are in line with similar patterns observed in clinical practice. Additionally, the proposed model shows the competitive classification and the nodule attribute scoring performance, highlighting its potential for effective decision-making in the lung nodule diagnosis.

Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We make use of a semantics-preserving translation between ABA and bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs). By utilizing compilability theory, we establish that the constructed BAFs will in general be of exponential size. In order to keep the number of arguments and computational cost low, we present three ways of identifying redundant arguments. Moreover, we identify fragments of ABA which admit a poly-sized instantiation. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. The first approach utilizes the BAF instantiation while the second works directly without constructing arguments. An empirical evaluation shows that the former outperforms the latter on many instances, reflecting the lower complexity of BAF reasoning. This result is in contrast to flat ABA, where direct approaches dominate instantiation-based approaches.