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.

In recent years there has been significant progress in time series anomaly detection. However, after detecting an (perhaps tentative) anomaly, can we explain it? Such explanations would be useful to triage anomalies. For example, in an oil refinery, should we respond to an anomaly by dispatching a hydraulic engineer, or an intern to replace the battery on a sensor? There have been some parallel efforts to explain anomalies, however many proposed techniques produce explanations that are indirect, and often seem more complex than the anomaly they seek to explain. Our review of the literature/checklists/user-manuals used by frontline practitioners in various domains reveals an interesting near-universal commonality. Most practitioners discuss, explain and report anomalies in the following format: The anomaly would be like normal data A, if not for the corruption B. The reader will appreciate that is a type of counterfactual explanation. In this work we introduce a domain agnostic counterfactual explanation technique to produce explanations for time series anomalies. As we will show, our method can produce both visual and text-based explanations that are objectively correct, intuitive and in many circumstances, directly actionable.

In formal argumentation, arguments and their relations are typically represented as directed graphs, in which nodes are arguments and edges are argument relationships (typically: attack or support). From these argumentation graphs, inferences about the acceptability statuses or strengths of arguments are drawn. One formal argumentation approach that is gaining increased research attention is Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation (QBA). In QBA, (typically numerical) weights - so-called initial strengths - are assigned to arguments, and arguments are connected by a support and an attack relation. Hence, arguments directly connected to a node through the node's incoming edges can be referred to as attackers and supporters (depending on the relation). Given a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Graph (QBAG), an argumentation semantics then infers the arguments' final strengths; intuitively, an argument's attackers tend to decrease its final strength, whereas supporters tend to increase it.

Predictive maintenance is a well studied collection of techniques that aims to prolong the life of a mechanical system by using artificial intelligence and machine learning to predict the optimal time to perform maintenance. The methods allow maintainers of systems and hardware to reduce financial and time costs of upkeep. As these methods are adopted for more serious and potentially life-threatening applications, the human operators need trust the predictive system. This attracts the field of Explainable AI (XAI) to introduce explainability and interpretability into the predictive system. XAI brings methods to the field of predictive maintenance that can amplify trust in the users while maintaining well-performing systems. This survey on explainable predictive maintenance (XPM) discusses and presents the current methods of XAI as applied to predictive maintenance while following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We categorize the different XPM methods into groups that follow the XAI literature. Additionally, we include current challenges and a discussion on future research directions in XPM.

End-to-end neural Natural Language Processing (NLP) models are notoriously difficult to understand. This has given rise to numerous efforts towards model explainability in recent years. One desideratum of model explanation is faithfulness, i.e. an explanation should accurately represent the reasoning process behind the model's prediction. In this survey, we review over 110 model explanation methods in NLP through the lens of faithfulness. We first discuss the definition and evaluation of faithfulness, as well as its significance for explainability. We then introduce recent advances in faithful explanation, grouping existing approaches into five categories: similarity-based methods, analysis of model-internal structures, backpropagation-based methods, counterfactual intervention, and self-explanatory models. For each category, we synthesize its representative studies, strengths, and weaknesses. Finally, we summarize their common virtues and remaining challenges, and reflect on future work directions towards faithful explainability in NLP.

Counterfactual Explanation (CE) techniques have garnered attention as a means to provide insights to the users engaging with AI systems. While extensively researched in domains such as medical imaging and autonomous vehicles, Graph Counterfactual Explanation (GCE) methods have been comparatively under-explored. GCEs generate a new graph similar to the original one, with a different outcome grounded on the underlying predictive model. Among these GCE techniques, those rooted in generative mechanisms have received relatively limited investigation despite demonstrating impressive accomplishments in other domains, such as artistic styles and natural language modelling. The preference for generative explainers stems from their capacity to generate counterfactual instances during inference, leveraging autonomously acquired perturbations of the input graph. Motivated by the rationales above, our study introduces RSGG-CE, a novel Robust Stochastic Graph Generator for Counterfactual Explanations able to produce counterfactual examples from the learned latent space considering a partially ordered generation sequence. Furthermore, we undertake quantitative and qualitative analyses to compare RSGG-CE's performance against SoA generative explainers, highlighting its increased ability to engendering plausible counterfactual candidates.

Despite neural networks (NN) have been widely applied in various fields and generally outperforms humans, they still lack interpretability to a certain extent, and humans are unable to intuitively understand the decision logic of NN. This also hinders the knowledge interaction between humans and NN, preventing humans from getting involved to give direct guidance when NN's decisions go wrong. While recent research in explainable AI has achieved interpretability of NN from various perspectives, it has not yet provided effective methods for knowledge exchange between humans and NN. To address this problem, we constructed a two-way interaction interface that uses structured representations of visual concepts and their relationships as the "language" for knowledge exchange between humans and NN. Specifically, NN provide intuitive reasoning explanations to humans based on the class-specific structural concepts graph (C-SCG). On the other hand, humans can modify the biases present in the C-SCG through their prior knowledge and reasoning ability, and thus provide direct knowledge guidance to NN through this interface. Through experimental validation, based on this interaction interface, NN can provide humans with easily understandable explanations of the reasoning process. Furthermore, human involvement and prior knowledge can directly and effectively contribute to enhancing the performance of NN.

Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules, defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction imposed on ABA frameworks (ABAFs) is that they are flat, i.e., each of the defeasible assumptions can only be assumed, but not derived. While it is known that flat ABAFs can be translated into abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) as proposed by Dung, no translation exists from general, possibly non-flat ABAFs into any kind of abstract argumentation formalism. In this paper, we close this gap and show that bipolar AFs (BAFs) can instantiate general ABAFs. To this end we develop suitable, novel BAF semantics which borrow from the notion of deductive support. We investigate basic properties of our BAFs, including computational complexity, and prove the desired relation to ABAFs under several semantics. Finally, in order to support computation and explainability, we propose the notion of dispute trees for our BAF semantics.

Chatbots are conversational software applications designed to interact dialectically with users for a plethora of different purposes. Surprisingly, these colloquial agents have only recently been coupled with computational models of arguments (i.e. computational argumentation), whose aim is to formalise, in a machine-readable format, the ordinary exchange of information that characterises human communications. Chatbots may employ argumentation with different degrees and in a variety of manners. The present survey sifts through the literature to review papers concerning this kind of argumentation-based bot, drawing conclusions about the benefits and drawbacks that this approach entails in comparison with standard chatbots, while also envisaging possible future development and integration with the Transformer-based architecture and state-of-the-art Large Language models.