Factorization-based models have gained popularity since the Netflix challenge {(2007)}. Since that, various factorization-based models have been developed and these models have been proven to be efficient in predicting users' ratings towards items. A major concern is that explaining the recommendations generated by such methods is non-trivial because the explicit meaning of the latent factors they learn are not always clear. In response, we propose a novel model that combines factorization-based methods with argumentation frameworks (AFs). The integration of AFs provides clear meaning at each stage of the model, enabling it to produce easily understandable explanations for its recommendations. In this model, for every user-item interaction, an AF is defined in which the features of items are considered as arguments, and the users' ratings towards these features determine the strength and polarity of these arguments. This perspective allows our model to treat feature attribution as a structured argumentation procedure, where each calculation is marked with explicit meaning, enhancing its inherent interpretability. Additionally, our framework seamlessly incorporates side information, such as user contexts, leading to more accurate predictions. We anticipate at least three practical applications for our model: creating explanation templates, providing interactive explanations, and generating contrastive explanations. Through testing on real-world datasets, we have found that our model, along with its variants, not only surpasses existing argumentation-based methods but also competes effectively with current context-free and context-aware methods.

Quantitatively explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics has recently received increasing attention. Specifically, several works in the literature provide quantitative explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments. These works disregard the importance of attacks and supports, even though they play an essential role when explaining arguments' strength. In this paper, we propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), adapting Shapley values from game theory to offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show that RAEs satisfy several desirable properties. We also propose a probabilistic algorithm to approximate RAEs efficiently. Finally, we show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.

In this paper, we demonstrate the feasibility of alterfactual explanations for black box image classifiers. Traditional explanation mechanisms from the field of Counterfactual Thinking are a widely-used paradigm for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), as they follow a natural way of reasoning that humans are familiar with. However, most common approaches from this field are based on communicating information about features or characteristics that are especially important for an AI's decision. However, to fully understand a decision, not only knowledge about relevant features is needed, but the awareness of irrelevant information also highly contributes to the creation of a user's mental model of an AI system. To this end, a novel approach for explaining AI systems called alterfactual explanations was recently proposed on a conceptual level. It is based on showing an alternative reality where irrelevant features of an AI's input are altered. By doing so, the user directly sees which input data characteristics can change arbitrarily without influencing the AI's decision. In this paper, we show for the first time that it is possible to apply this idea to black box models based on neural networks. To this end, we present a GAN-based approach to generate these alterfactual explanations for binary image classifiers. Further, we present a user study that gives interesting insights on how alterfactual explanations can complement counterfactual explanations.

Counterfactual explanations find ways of achieving a favorable model outcome with minimum input perturbation. However, counterfactual explanations can also be exploited to steal the model by strategically training a surrogate model to give similar predictions as the original (target) model. In this work, we investigate model extraction by specifically leveraging the fact that the counterfactual explanations also lie quite close to the decision boundary. We propose a novel strategy for model extraction that we call Counterfactual Clamping Attack (CCA) which trains a surrogate model using a unique loss function that treats counterfactuals differently than ordinary instances. Our approach also alleviates the related problem of decision boundary shift that arises in existing model extraction attacks which treat counterfactuals as ordinary instances. We also derive novel mathematical relationships between the error in model approximation and the number of queries using polytope theory. Experimental results demonstrate that our strategy provides improved fidelity between the target and surrogate model predictions on several real world datasets.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a model by generating alternative hypothetical instances. While there has been important work on counterfactual and semifactual explanations for Machine Learning models, less attention has been devoted to these kinds of problems in argumentation. In this paper, we explore counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Framework. We investigate the computational complexity of counterfactual- and semifactual-based reasoning problems, showing that they are generally harder than classical argumentation problems such as credulous and skeptical acceptance. Finally, we show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provide a computational strategy through ASP solvers.

The end-to-end learning pipeline is gradually creating a paradigm shift in the ongoing development of highly autonomous vehicles, largely due to advances in deep learning, the availability of large-scale training datasets, and improvements in integrated sensor devices. However, a lack of interpretability in real-time decisions with contemporary learning methods impedes user trust and attenuates the widespread deployment and commercialization of such vehicles. Moreover, the issue is exacerbated when these cars are involved in or cause traffic accidents. Such drawback raises serious safety concerns from societal and legal perspectives. Consequently, explainability in end-to-end autonomous driving is essential to build trust in vehicular automation. However, the safety and explainability aspects of end-to-end driving have generally been investigated disjointly by researchers in today's state of the art. This survey aims to bridge the gaps between these topics and seeks to answer the following research question: When and how can explanations improve safety of end-to-end autonomous driving? In this regard, we first revisit established safety and state-of-the-art explainability techniques in end-to-end driving. Furthermore, we present three critical case studies and show the pivotal role of explanations in enhancing self-driving safety. Finally, we describe insights from empirical studies and reveal potential value, limitations, and caveats of practical explainable AI methods with respect to their safety assurance in end-to-end autonomous driving.

Nowadays, large-scale foundation models are being increasingly integrated into numerous safety-critical applications, including human-autonomy teaming (HAT) within transportation, medical, and defence domains. Consequently, the inherent 'black-box' nature of these sophisticated deep neural networks heightens the significance of fostering mutual understanding and trust between humans and autonomous systems. To tackle the transparency challenges in HAT, this paper conducts a thoughtful study on the underexplored domain of Explainable Interface (EI) in HAT systems from a human-centric perspective, thereby enriching the existing body of research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). We explore the design, development, and evaluation of EI within XAI-enhanced HAT systems. To do so, we first clarify the distinctions between these concepts: EI, explanations and model explainability, aiming to provide researchers and practitioners with a structured understanding. Second, we contribute to a novel framework for EI, addressing the unique challenges in HAT. Last, our summarized evaluation framework for ongoing EI offers a holistic perspective, encompassing model performance, human-centered factors, and group task objectives. Based on extensive surveys across XAI, HAT, psychology, and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), this review offers multiple novel insights into incorporating XAI into HAT systems and outlines future directions.

Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) based on relevance of input pixels might be too unspecific to evaluate which and how input features impact model decisions. Especially in complex real-world domains like biomedicine, the presence of specific concepts (e.g., a certain type of cell) and of relations between concepts (e.g., one cell type is next to another) might be discriminative between classes (e.g., different types of tissue). Pixel relevance is not expressive enough to convey this type of information. In consequence, model evaluation is limited and relevant aspects present in the data and influencing the model decisions might be overlooked. This work presents a novel method to explain and evaluate CNN models, which uses a concept- and relation-based explainer (CoReX). It explains the predictive behavior of a model on a set of images by masking (ir-)relevant concepts from the decision-making process and by constraining relations in a learned interpretable surrogate model. We test our approach with several image data sets and CNN architectures. Results show that CoReX explanations are faithful to the CNN model in terms of predictive outcomes. We further demonstrate that CoReX is a suitable tool for evaluating CNNs supporting identification and re-classification of incorrect or ambiguous classifications.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease during childhood and adolescence. The temporomandibular joints (TMJ) are among the most frequently affected joints in patients with JIA, and mandibular growth is especially vulnerable to arthritic changes of the TMJ in children. A clinical examination is the most cost-effective method to diagnose TMJ involvement, but clinicians find it difficult to interpret and inaccurate when used only on clinical examinations. This study implemented an explainable artificial intelligence (AI) model that can help clinicians assess TMJ involvement. The classification model was trained using Random Forest on 6154 clinical examinations of 1035 pediatric patients (67% female, 33% male) and evaluated on its ability to correctly classify TMJ involvement or not on a separate test set. Most notably, the results show that the model can classify patients within two years of their first examination as having TMJ involvement with a precision of 0.86 and a sensitivity of 0.7. The results show promise for an AI model in the assessment of TMJ involvement in children and as a decision support tool.

Attribution methods compute importance scores for input features to explain the output predictions of deep models. However, accurate assessment of attribution methods is challenged by the lack of benchmark fidelity for attributing model predictions. Moreover, other confounding factors in attribution estimation, including the setup choices of post-processing techniques and explained model predictions, further compromise the reliability of the evaluation. In this work, we first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill, thereby facilitating a systematic assessment of attribution benchmarks. Next, we introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria. We theoretically establish the superiority of our approach over the existing benchmarks for well-founded attribution evaluation. With extensive analysis, we also identify a setup for a consistent and fair benchmarking of attribution methods across different underlying methodologies. This setup is ultimately employed for a comprehensive comparison of existing methods using our BackX benchmark. Finally, our analysis also provides guidance for defending against backdoor attacks with the help of attribution methods.