When used in the context of decision theory, feature importance expresses how much changing the value of a feature can change the model outcome (or the utility of the outcome), compared to other features. Feature importance should not be confused with the feature influence used by most state-of-the-art post-hoc Explainable AI methods. Contrary to feature importance, feature influence is measured against a reference level or baseline. The Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU) method provides a unified definition of global and local feature importance that is applicable also for post-hoc explanations, where the value utility concept provides instance-level assessment of how favorable or not a feature value is for the outcome. The paper shows how CIU can be applied to both global and local explainability, assesses the fidelity and stability of different methods, and shows how explanations that use contextual importance and contextual utility can provide more expressive and flexible explanations than when using influence only.

While a vast collection of explainable AI (XAI) algorithms have been developed in recent years, they are often criticized for significant gaps with how humans produce and consume explanations. As a result, current XAI techniques are often found to be hard to use and lack effectiveness. In this work, we attempt to close these gaps by making AI explanations selective -- a fundamental property of human explanations -- by selectively presenting a subset from a large set of model reasons based on what aligns with the recipient's preferences. We propose a general framework for generating selective explanations by leveraging human input on a small sample. This framework opens up a rich design space that accounts for different selectivity goals, types of input, and more. As a showcase, we use a decision-support task to explore selective explanations based on what the decision-maker would consider relevant to the decision task. We conducted two experimental studies to examine three out of a broader possible set of paradigms based on our proposed framework: in Study 1, we ask the participants to provide their own input to generate selective explanations, with either open-ended or critique-based input. In Study 2, we show participants selective explanations based on input from a panel of similar users (annotators). Our experiments demonstrate the promise of selective explanations in reducing over-reliance on AI and improving decision outcomes and subjective perceptions of the AI, but also paint a nuanced picture that attributes some of these positive effects to the opportunity to provide one's own input to augment AI explanations. Overall, our work proposes a novel XAI framework inspired by human communication behaviors and demonstrates its potentials to encourage future work to better align AI explanations with human production and consumption of explanations.

Argumentative explainable AI has been advocated by several in recent years, with an increasing interest on explaining the reasoning outcomes of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). While there is a considerable body of research on qualitatively explaining the reasoning outcomes of AFs with debates/disputes/dialogues in the spirit of extension-based semantics, explaining the quantitative reasoning outcomes of AFs under gradual semantics has not received much attention, despite widespread use in applications. In this paper, we contribute to filling this gap by proposing a novel theory of Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning in the context of Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs): whereas feature attribution is used to determine the influence of features towards outputs of machine learning models, AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting. To demonstrate the applicability of our AAEs in practice, we conclude by carrying out two case studies in the scenarios of fake news detection and movie recommender systems.

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are very powerful and can process different kinds of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, it can be difficult to interpret the results due to the multi-layer nonlinear model structure and millions of parameters. A lack of clarity and understanding of how the language models (LMs) work can make them unreliable, difficult to trust, and potentially dangerous for use in real-world scenarios. Most recent works exploit attention weights to provide explanations for LM predictions. However, pure attention-based explanations are unable to support the growing complexity of LMs, and cannot reason about their decision-making processes. We propose LMExplainer, a knowledge-enhanced explainer for LMs that can provide human-understandable explanations. We use a knowledge graph (KG) and a graph attention neural network to extract the key decision signals of the LM. We further explore whether interpretation can also help the AI understand the task better. Our experimental results show that LMExplainer outperforms existing LM+KG methods on CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA. We compare the explanation results with generated explanation methods and human-annotated results. The comparison shows our method can provide more comprehensive and clearer explanations. LMExplainer demonstrates the potential to enhance model performance and furnish explanations for the LM reasoning process in natural language.

While research on explainable AI (XAI) is booming and explanation techniques have proven promising in many application domains, standardised human-centred evaluation procedures are still missing. In addition, current evaluation procedures do not assess XAI methods holistically in the sense that they do not treat explanations' effects on humans as a complex user experience. To tackle this challenge, we propose to adapt the User-Centric Evaluation Framework used in recommender systems: we integrate explanation aspects, summarise explanation properties, indicate relations between them, and categorise metrics that measure these properties. With this comprehensive evaluation framework, we hope to contribute to the human-centred standardisation of XAI evaluation.

In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of acceptability are assigned to arguments. Another important distinction is that between abstract approaches, that abstract away from the content of arguments, and structured approaches, that specify a method of constructing argument graphs on the basis of a knowledge base. While ranking-based semantics have been extensively applied to abstract argumentation, few work has been done on ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. In this paper, we make a systematic investigation into the behaviour of ranking-based semantics applied to existing formalisms for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures, and are relatively robust to specific choices in argument construction methods.

Continual learning enables incremental learning of new tasks without forgetting those previously learned, resulting in positive knowledge transfer that can enhance performance on both new and old tasks. However, continual learning poses new challenges for interpretability, as the rationale behind model predictions may change over time, leading to interpretability concept drift. We address this problem by proposing Interpretable Class-InCremental LEarning (ICICLE), an exemplar-free approach that adopts a prototypical part-based approach. It consists of three crucial novelties: interpretability regularization that distills previously learned concepts while preserving user-friendly positive reasoning; proximity-based prototype initialization strategy dedicated to the fine-grained setting; and task-recency bias compensation devoted to prototypical parts. Our experimental results demonstrate that ICICLE reduces the interpretability concept drift and outperforms the existing exemplar-free methods of common class-incremental learning when applied to concept-based models.

The European Union has proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act which introduces detailed requirements of transparency for AI systems. Many of these requirements can be addressed by the field of explainable AI (XAI), however, there is a fundamental difference between XAI and the Act regarding what transparency is. The Act views transparency as a means that supports wider values, such as accountability, human rights, and sustainable innovation. In contrast, XAI views transparency narrowly as an end in itself, focusing on explaining complex algorithmic properties without considering the socio-technical context. We call this difference the ``transparency gap''. Failing to address the transparency gap, XAI risks leaving a range of transparency issues unaddressed. To begin to bridge this gap, we overview and clarify the terminology of how XAI and European regulation -- the Act and the related General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) -- view basic definitions of transparency. By comparing the disparate views of XAI and regulation, we arrive at four axes where practical work could bridge the transparency gap: defining the scope of transparency, clarifying the legal status of XAI, addressing issues with conformity assessment, and building explainability for datasets.

A CF explainer identifies the minimum modifications in the input that would alter the model's output to its complement. In other words, a CF explainer computes the minimum modifications required to cross the model's decision boundary. Current deep generative CF models often work with user-selected features rather than focusing on the discriminative features of the black-box model. Consequently, such CF examples may not necessarily lie near the decision boundary, thereby contradicting the definition of CFs. To address this issue, we propose in this paper a novel approach that leverages saliency maps to generate more informative CF explanations. Source codes are available at: https://github.com/Amir-Samadi//Saliency_Aware_CF.

The use of argumentation in education has been shown to improve critical thinking skills for end-users such as students, and computational models for argumentation have been developed to assist in this process. Although these models are useful for evaluating the quality of an argument, they oftentimes cannot explain why a particular argument is considered poor or not, which makes it difficult to provide constructive feedback to users to strengthen their critical thinking skills. In this survey, we aim to explore the different dimensions of feedback (Richness, Visualization, Interactivity, and Personalization) provided by the current computational models for argumentation, and the possibility of enhancing the power of explanations of such models, ultimately helping learners improve their critical thinking skills.