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.

As Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents are increasingly employed in diverse decision-making problems using reward preferences, it becomes important to ensure that policies learned by these frameworks in mapping observations to a probability distribution of the possible actions are explainable. However, there is little to no work in the systematic understanding of these complex policies in a contrastive manner, i.e., what minimal changes to the policy would improve/worsen its performance to a desired level. In this work, we present COUNTERPOL, the first framework to analyze RL policies using counterfactual explanations in the form of minimal changes to the policy that lead to the desired outcome. We do so by incorporating counterfactuals in supervised learning in RL with the target outcome regulated using desired return. We establish a theoretical connection between Counterpol and widely used trust region-based policy optimization methods in RL. Extensive empirical analysis shows the efficacy of COUNTERPOL in generating explanations for (un)learning skills while keeping close to the original policy. Our results on five different RL environments with diverse state and action spaces demonstrate the utility of counterfactual explanations, paving the way for new frontiers in designing and developing counterfactual policies.

Two types of explanations have been receiving increased attention in the literature when analyzing the decisions made by classifiers. The first type explains why a decision was made and is known as a sufficient reason for the decision, also an abductive explanation or a PI-explanation. The second type explains why some other decision was not made and is known as a necessary reason for the decision, also a contrastive or counterfactual explanation. These explanations were defined for classifiers with binary, discrete and, in some cases, continuous features. We show that these explanations can be significantly improved in the presence of non-binary features, leading to a new class of explanations that relay more information about decisions and the underlying classifiers. Necessary and sufficient reasons were also shown to be the prime implicates and implicants of the complete reason for a decision, which can be obtained using a quantification operator. We show that our improved notions of necessary and sufficient reasons are also prime implicates and implicants but for an improved notion of complete reason obtained by a new quantification operator that we also define and study.

Miller recently proposed a definition of contrastive (counterfactual) explanations based on the well-known Halpern-Pearl (HP) definitions of causes and (non-contrastive) explanations. Crucially, the Miller definition was based on the original HP definition of explanations, but this has since been modified by Halpern; presumably because the original yields counterintuitive results in many standard examples. More recently Borner has proposed a third definition, observing that this modified HP definition may also yield counterintuitive results. In this paper we show that the Miller definition inherits issues found in the original HP definition. We address these issues by proposing two improved variants based on the more robust modified HP and Borner definitions. We analyse our new definitions and show that they retain the spirit of the Miller definition where all three variants satisfy an alternative unified definition that is modular with respect to an underlying definition of non-contrastive explanations. To the best of our knowledge this paper also provides the first explicit comparison between the original and modified HP definitions.

In this paper we propose a new model to represent human debates and methods to obtain collective conclusions from them. This model overcomes two drawbacks of existing approaches. First, our model does not assume that participants agree on the structure of the debate. It does this by allowing participants to express their opinion about all aspects of the debate. Second, our model does not assume that participants' opinions are rational, an assumption that significantly limits current approaches. Instead, we define a weaker notion of rationality that characterises coherent opinions, and we consider different scenarios based on the coherence of individual opinions and the level of consensus. We provide a formal analysis of different opinion aggregation functions that compute a collective decision based on the individual opinions and the debate structure. In particular, we demonstrate that aggregated opinions can be coherent even if there is a lack of consensus and individual opinions are not coherent. We conclude with an empirical evaluation demonstrating that collective opinions can be computed efficiently for real-sized debates.

The field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to improve the interpretability of black-box machine learning models. Building a heatmap based on the importance value of input features is a popular method for explaining the underlying functions of such models in producing their predictions. Heatmaps are almost understandable to humans, yet they are not without flaws. Non-expert users, for example, may not fully understand the logic of heatmaps (the logic in which relevant pixels to the model's prediction are highlighted with different intensities or colors). Additionally, objects and regions of the input image that are relevant to the model prediction are frequently not entirely differentiated by heatmaps. In this paper, we propose a framework called TbExplain that employs XAI techniques and a pre-trained object detector to present text-based explanations of scene classification models. Moreover, TbExplain incorporates a novel method to correct predictions and textually explain them based on the statistics of objects in the input image when the initial prediction is unreliable. To assess the trustworthiness and validity of the text-based explanations, we conducted a qualitative experiment, and the findings indicated that these explanations are sufficiently reliable. Furthermore, our quantitative and qualitative experiments on TbExplain with scene classification datasets reveal an improvement in classification accuracy over ResNet variants.