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.

Deep learning (DL) approaches are being increasingly used for time-series forecasting, with many efforts devoted to designing complex DL models. Recent studies have shown that the DL success is often attributed to effective data representations, fostering the fields of feature engineering and representation learning. However, automated approaches for feature learning are typically limited with respect to incorporating prior knowledge, identifying interactions among variables, and choosing evaluation metrics to ensure that the models are reliable. To improve on these limitations, this paper contributes a novel visual analytics framework, namely TimeTuner, designed to help analysts understand how model behaviors are associated with localized correlations, stationarity, and granularity of time-series representations. The system mainly consists of the following two-stage technique: We first leverage counterfactual explanations to connect the relationships among time-series representations, multivariate features and model predictions. Next, we design multiple coordinated views including a partition-based correlation matrix and juxtaposed bivariate stripes, and provide a set of interactions that allow users to step into the transformation selection process, navigate through the feature space, and reason the model performance. We instantiate TimeTuner with two transformation methods of smoothing and sampling, and demonstrate its applicability on real-world time-series forecasting of univariate sunspots and multivariate air pollutants. Feedback from domain experts indicates that our system can help characterize time-series representations and guide the feature engineering processes.

With the increased deployment of machine learning models in various real-world applications, researchers and practitioners alike have emphasized the need for explanations of model behaviour. To this end, two broad strategies have been outlined in prior literature to explain models. Post hoc explanation methods explain the behaviour of complex black-box models by highlighting features that are critical to model predictions; however, prior work has shown that these explanations may not be faithful, and even more concerning is our inability to verify them. Specifically, it is nontrivial to evaluate if a given attribution is correct with respect to the underlying model. Inherently interpretable models, on the other hand, circumvent these issues by explicitly encoding explanations into model architecture, meaning their explanations are naturally faithful and verifiable, but they often exhibit poor predictive performance due to their limited expressive power. In this work, we aim to bridge the gap between the aforementioned strategies by proposing Verifiability Tuning (VerT), a method that transforms black-box models into models that naturally yield faithful and verifiable feature attributions. We begin by introducing a formal theoretical framework to understand verifiability and show that attributions produced by standard models cannot be verified. We then leverage this framework to propose a method to build verifiable models and feature attributions out of fully trained black-box models. Finally, we perform extensive experiments on semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, and show that VerT produces models that (1) yield explanations that are correct and verifiable and (2) are faithful to the original black-box models they are meant to explain.

Counterfactual examples have emerged as an effective approach to produce simple and understandable post-hoc explanations. In the context of graph classification, previous work has focused on generating counterfactual explanations by manipulating the most elementary units of a graph, i.e., removing an existing edge, or adding a non-existing one. In this paper, we claim that such language of explanation might be too fine-grained, and turn our attention to some of the main characterizing features of real-world complex networks, such as the tendency to close triangles, the existence of recurring motifs, and the organization into dense modules. We thus define a general density-based counterfactual search framework to generate instance-level counterfactual explanations for graph classifiers, which can be instantiated with different notions of dense substructures. In particular, we show two specific instantiations of this general framework: a method that searches for counterfactual graphs by opening or closing triangles, and a method driven by maximal cliques. We also discuss how the general method can be instantiated to exploit any other notion of dense substructures, including, for instance, a given taxonomy of nodes. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approaches in 7 brain network datasets and compare the counterfactual statements generated according to several widely-used metrics. Results confirm that adopting a semantic-relevant unit of change like density is essential to define versatile and interpretable counterfactual explanation methods.

Interpretable part-prototype models are computer vision models that are explainable by design. The models learn prototypical parts and recognise these components in an image, thereby combining classification and explanation. Despite the recent attention for intrinsically interpretable models, there is no comprehensive overview on evaluating the explanation quality of interpretable part-prototype models. Based on the Co-12 properties for explanation quality as introduced in [42] (e.g., correctness, completeness, compactness), we review existing work that evaluates part-prototype models, reveal research gaps and outline future approaches for evaluation of the explanation quality of part-prototype models. This paper, therefore, contributes to the progression and maturity of this relatively new research field on interpretable part-prototype models. We additionally provide a "Co-12 cheat sheet" that acts as a concise summary of our findings on evaluating part-prototype models.

The transition to a sustainable energy supply challenges the operation of electric power systems in manifold ways. Transmission grid loads increase as wind and solar power are often installed far away from the consumers. In extreme cases, system operators must intervene via countertrading or redispatch to ensure grid stability. In this article, we provide a data-driven analysis of congestion in the German transmission grid. We develop an explainable machine learning model to predict the volume of redispatch and countertrade on an hourly basis. The model reveals factors that drive or mitigate grid congestion and quantifies their impact. We show that, as expected, wind power generation is the main driver, but hydropower and cross-border electricity trading also play an essential role. Solar power, on the other hand, has no mitigating effect. Our results suggest that a change to the market design would alleviate congestion.