While a substantial amount of work has recently been devoted to enhance the performance of computational Authorship Identification (AId) systems, little to no attention has been paid to endowing AId systems with the ability to explain the reasons behind their predictions. This lacking substantially hinders the practical employment of AId methodologies, since the predictions returned by such systems are hardly useful unless they are supported with suitable explanations. In this paper, we explore the applicability of existing general-purpose eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to AId, with a special focus on explanations addressed to scholars working in cultural heritage. In particular, we assess the relative merits of three different types of XAI techniques (feature ranking, probing, factuals and counterfactual selection) on three different AId tasks (authorship attribution, authorship verification, same-authorship verification) by running experiments on real AId data. Our analysis shows that, while these techniques make important first steps towards explainable Authorship Identification, more work remains to be done in order to provide tools that can be profitably integrated in the workflows of scholars.

Explaining the behaviour of intelligent agents learned by reinforcement learning (RL) to humans is challenging yet crucial due to their incomprehensible proprioceptive states, variational intermediate goals, and resultant unpredictability. Moreover, one-step explanations for RL agents can be ambiguous as they fail to account for the agent's future behaviour at each transition, adding to the complexity of explaining robot actions. By leveraging abstracted actions that map to task-specific primitives, we avoid explanations on the movement level. To further improve the transparency and explainability of robotic systems, we propose an explainable Q-Map learning framework that combines reward decomposition (RD) with abstracted action spaces, allowing for non-ambiguous and high-level explanations based on object properties in the task. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through quantitative and qualitative analysis of two robotic scenarios, showcasing visual and textual explanations, from output artefacts of RD explanations, that are easy for humans to comprehend. Additionally, we demonstrate the versatility of integrating these artefacts with large language models (LLMs) for reasoning and interactive querying.

The growing attention to artificial intelligence-based applications has led to research interest in explainability issues. This emerging research attention on explainable AI (XAI) advocates the need to investigate end user-centric explainable AI. Thus, this study aims to investigate usercentric explainable AI and considered recommendation systems as the study context. We conducted focus group interviews to collect qualitative data on the recommendation system. We asked participants about the end users' comprehension of a recommended item, its probable explanation, and their opinion of making a recommendation explainable. Our findings reveal that end users want a non-technical and tailor-made explanation with on-demand supplementary information. Moreover, we also observed users requiring an explanation about personal data usage, detailed user feedback, and authentic and reliable explanations. Finally, we propose a synthesized framework that aims at involving the end user in the development process for requirements collection and validation.

In the field of explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), sequential counterfactual (SCF) examples are often used to alter the decision of a trained classifier by implementing a sequence of modifications to the input instance. Although certain test-time algorithms aim to optimize for each new instance individually, recently Reinforcement Learning (RL) methods have been proposed that seek to learn policies for discovering SCFs, thereby enhancing scalability. As is typical in RL, the formulation of the RL problem, including the specification of state space, actions, and rewards, can often be ambiguous. In this work, we identify shortcomings in existing methods that can result in policies with undesired properties, such as a bias towards specific actions. We propose to use the output probabilities of the classifier to create a more informative reward, to mitigate this effect.

Argument generation is a challenging task in natural language processing, which requires rigorous reasoning and proper content organization. Inspired by recent chain-of-thought prompting that breaks down a complex task into intermediate steps, we propose Americano, a novel framework with agent interaction for argument generation. Our approach decomposes the generation process into sequential actions grounded on argumentation theory, which first executes actions sequentially to generate argumentative discourse components, and then produces a final argument conditioned on the components. To further mimic the human writing process and improve the left-to-right generation paradigm of current autoregressive language models, we introduce an argument refinement module which automatically evaluates and refines argument drafts based on feedback received. We evaluate our framework on the task of counterargument generation using a subset of Reddit/CMV dataset. The results show that our method outperforms both end-to-end and chain-of-thought prompting methods and can generate more coherent and persuasive arguments with diverse and rich contents.

As systems based on opaque Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to flourish in diverse real-world applications, understanding these black box models has become paramount. In response, Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a field of research with practical and ethical benefits across various domains. This paper not only highlights the advancements in XAI and its application in real-world scenarios but also addresses the ongoing challenges within XAI, emphasizing the need for broader perspectives and collaborative efforts. We bring together experts from diverse fields to identify open problems, striving to synchronize research agendas and accelerate XAI in practical applications. By fostering collaborative discussion and interdisciplinary cooperation, we aim to propel XAI forward, contributing to its continued success. Our goal is to put forward a comprehensive proposal for advancing XAI. To achieve this goal, we present a manifesto of 27 open problems categorized into nine categories. These challenges encapsulate the complexities and nuances of XAI and offer a road map for future research. For each problem, we provide promising research directions in the hope of harnessing the collective intelligence of interested stakeholders.

Despite a surge collection of XAI methods, users still struggle to obtain required AI explanations. Previous research suggests chatbots as dynamic solutions, but the effective design of conversational XAI agents for practical human needs remains under-explored. This paper focuses on Conversational XAI for AI-assisted scientific writing tasks. Drawing from human linguistic theories and formative studies, we identify four design rationales: "multifaceted", "controllability", "mix-initiative", "context-aware drill-down". We incorporate them into an interactive prototype, ConvXAI, which facilitates heterogeneous AI explanations for scientific writing through dialogue. In two studies with 21 users, ConvXAI outperforms a GUI-based baseline on improving human-perceived understanding and writing improvement. The paper further discusses the practical human usage patterns in interacting with ConvXAI for scientific co-writing.

As algorithmic decision-making systems become more prevalent in society, ensuring the fairness of these systems is becoming increasingly important. Whilst there has been substantial research in building fair algorithmic decision-making systems, the majority of these methods require access to the training data, including personal characteristics, and are not transparent regarding which individuals are classified unfairly. In this paper, we propose a novel model-agnostic argumentation-based method to determine why an individual is classified differently in comparison to similar individuals. Our method uses a quantitative argumentation framework to represent attribute-value pairs of an individual and of those similar to them, and uses a well-known semantics to identify the attribute-value pairs in the individual contributing most to their different classification. We evaluate our method on two datasets commonly used in the fairness literature and illustrate its effectiveness in the identification of bias.

With advancements in natural language processing (NLP) models, automatic explanation generation has been proposed to mitigate misinformation on social media platforms in addition to adding warning labels to identified fake news. While many researchers have focused on generating good explanations, how these explanations can really help humans combat fake news is under-explored. In this study, we compare the effectiveness of a warning label and the state-of-the-art counterfactual explanations generated by GPT-4 in debunking misinformation. In a two-wave, online human-subject study, participants (N = 215) were randomly assigned to a control group in which false contents are shown without any intervention, a warning tag group in which the false claims were labeled, or an explanation group in which the false contents were accompanied by GPT-4 generated explanations. Our results show that both interventions significantly decrease participants' self-reported belief in fake claims in an equivalent manner for the short-term and long-term. We discuss the implications of our findings and directions for future NLP-based misinformation debunking strategies.

Counterfactual explanations play an important role in detecting bias and improving the explainability of data-driven classification models. A counterfactual explanation (CE) is a minimal perturbed data point for which the decision of the model changes. Most of the existing methods can only provide one CE, which may not be achievable for the user. In this work we derive an iterative method to calculate robust CEs, i.e. CEs that remain valid even after the features are slightly perturbed. To this end, our method provides a whole region of CEs allowing the user to choose a suitable recourse to obtain a desired outcome. We use algorithmic ideas from robust optimization and prove convergence results for the most common machine learning methods including logistic regression, decision trees, random forests, and neural networks. Our experiments show that our method can efficiently generate globally optimal robust CEs for a variety of common data sets and classification models.