Due to user demand and recent regulation (GDPR, AI Act), decisions made by AI systems need to be explained. These decisions are often explainable only post hoc, where counterfactual explanations are popular. The question of what constitutes the best counterfactual explanation must consider multiple aspects, where "distance from the sample" is the most common. We argue that this requirement frequently leads to explanations that are unlikely and, therefore, of limited value. Here, we present a system that provides high-likelihood explanations. We show that the search for the most likely explanations satisfying many common desiderata for counterfactual explanations can be modeled using mixed-integer optimization (MIO). In the process, we propose an MIO formulation of a Sum-Product Network (SPN) and use the SPN to estimate the likelihood of a counterfactual, which can be of independent interest. A numerical comparison against several methods for generating counterfactual explanations is provided.

Decision-making with information displays is a key focus of research in areas like explainable AI, human-AI teaming, and data visualization. However, what constitutes a decision problem, and what is required for an experiment to be capable of concluding that human decisions are flawed in some way, remain open to speculation. We present a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics. We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the normative decision. We evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve this criteria. We find that only 6 (17\%) of 35 studies that claim to identify biased behavior present participants with sufficient information to characterize their behavior as deviating from good decision-making. We motivate the value of studying well-defined decision problems by describing a characterization of performance losses they allow us to conceive. In contrast, the ambiguities of a poorly communicated decision problem preclude normative interpretation. We conclude with recommendations for practice.

Automated legal reasoning and its application in smart contracts and automated decisions are increasingly attracting interest. In this context, ethical and legal concerns make it necessary for automated reasoners to justify in human-understandable terms the advice given. Logic Programming, specially Answer Set Programming, has a rich semantics and has been used to very concisely express complex knowledge. However, modelling discretionality to act and other vague concepts such as ambiguity cannot be expressed in top-down execution models based on Prolog, and in bottom-up execution models based on ASP the justifications are incomplete and/or not scalable. We propose to use s(CASP), a top-down execution model for predicate ASP, to model vague concepts following a set of patterns. We have implemented a framework, called s(LAW), to model, reason, and justify the applicable legislation and validate it by translating (and benchmarking) a representative use case, the criteria for the admission of students in the "Comunidad de Madrid".

Elucidating the reasoning process with structured explanations from question to answer is fundamentally crucial, as it significantly enhances the interpretability and trustworthiness of question-answering (QA) systems. However, structured explanations demand models to perform intricate structured reasoning, which poses great challenges. Most existing methods focus on single-step reasoning through supervised learning, ignoring logical dependencies between steps. Meanwhile, existing reinforcement learning (RL)-based methods overlook the structured relationships, impeding RL's potential in structured reasoning. In this paper, we propose SEER, a novel method that maximizes a structure-based return to facilitate structured reasoning and explanation. Our proposed structure-based return precisely describes the hierarchical and branching structure inherent in structured reasoning, effectively capturing the intricate relationships between states. We also introduce a fine-grained reward function to meticulously delineate diverse reasoning steps. Extensive experiments show that SEER significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving an absolute improvement of 6.9% over RL-based methods on EntailmentBank, a 4.4% average improvement on STREET benchmark, and exhibiting outstanding efficiency and cross-dataset generalization performance.

Counterfactuals have been established as a popular explainability technique which leverages a set of minimal edits to alter the prediction of a classifier. When considering conceptual counterfactuals, the edits requested should correspond to salient concepts present in the input data. At the same time, conceptual distances are defined by knowledge graphs, ensuring the optimality of conceptual edits. In this work, we extend previous endeavors on conceptual counterfactuals by introducing \textit{graph edits as counterfactual explanations}: should we represent input data as graphs, which is the shortest graph edit path that results in an alternative classification label as provided by a black-box classifier?

Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing the strength of the argument, computed based on factors including background evidence for the argument, and taking into account interactions between this argument and others. We introduce four important problems linking gradual semantics and acceptability degrees. First, we reexamine the inverse problem, seeking to identify the argument weights of the argumentation framework which lead to a specific final acceptability degree. Second, we ask whether the function mapping between argument weights and acceptability degrees is injective or a homeomorphism onto its image. Third, we ask whether argument weights can be found when preferences, rather than acceptability degrees for arguments are considered. Fourth, we consider the topology of the space of valid acceptability degrees, asking whether gaps exist in this space. While different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, in this paper, we identify a large family of weighted gradual semantics, called abstract weighted based gradual semantics. These generalise many of the existing semantics while maintaining desirable properties such as convergence to a unique fixed point. We also show that a sub-family of the weighted gradual semantics, called abstract weighted (Lp,lambda,mu,A)-based gradual semantics and which include well-known semantics, solve all four of the aforementioned problems.

The lack of annotated data on professional argumentation and complete argumentative debates has led to the oversimplification and the inability of approaching more complex natural language processing tasks. Such is the case of the automatic debate evaluation. In this paper, we propose an original hybrid method to automatically evaluate argumentative debates. For that purpose, we combine concepts from argumentation theory such as argumentation frameworks and semantics, with Transformer-based architectures and neural graph networks. Furthermore, we obtain promising results that lay the basis on an unexplored new instance of the automatic analysis of natural language arguments.

In this paper, we propose leveraging causal generative learning as an interpretable tool for explaining image classifiers. Specifically, we present a generative counterfactual inference approach to study the influence of visual features (i.e., pixels) as well as causal factors through generative learning. To this end, we first uncover the most influential pixels on a classifier's decision by varying the value of a causal attribute via counterfactual inference and computing both Shapely and contrastive explanations for counterfactual images with these different attribute values. We then establish a Monte-Carlo mechanism using the generator of a causal generative model in order to adapt Shapley explainers to produce feature importances for the human-interpretable attributes of a causal dataset in the case where a classifier has been trained exclusively on the images of the dataset. Finally, we present optimization methods for creating counterfactual explanations of classifiers by means of counterfactual inference, proposing straightforward approaches for both differentiable and arbitrary classifiers. We exploit the Morpho-MNIST causal dataset as a case study for exploring our proposed methods for generating counterfacutl explantions. We employ visual explanation methods from OmnixAI open source toolkit to compare them with our proposed methods. By employing quantitative metrics to measure the interpretability of counterfactual explanations, we find that our proposed methods of counterfactual explanation offer more interpretable explanations compared to those generated from OmnixAI. This finding suggests that our methods are well-suited for generating highly interpretable counterfactual explanations on causal datasets.

Rhetorical Structure Theory implies no single discourse interpretation of a text, and the limitations of RST parsers further exacerbate inconsistent parsing of similar structures. Therefore, it is important to take into account that the same argumentative structure can be found in semantically similar texts with varying rhetorical structures. In this work, the differences between paraphrases within the same argument scheme are evaluated from a rhetorical perspective. The study proposes a deep dependency parsing model to assess the connection between rhetorical and argument structures. The model utilizes rhetorical relations; RST structures of paraphrases serve as training data augmentations. The method allows for end-to-end argumentation analysis using a rhetorical tree instead of a word sequence. It is evaluated on the bilingual Microtexts corpus, and the first results on fully-fledged argument parsing for the Russian version of the corpus are reported. The results suggest that argument mining can benefit from multiple variants of discourse structure.

The rising use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in human detection on Edge camera systems has led to accurate but complex models, challenging to interpret and debug. Our research presents a diagnostic method using Explainable AI (XAI) for model debugging, with expert-driven problem identification and solution creation. Validated on the Bytetrack model in a real-world office Edge network, we found the training dataset as the main bias source and suggested model augmentation as a solution. Our approach helps identify model biases, essential for achieving fair and trustworthy models.