Many visualizations have been developed for explainable AI (XAI), but they often require further reasoning by users to interpret. We argue that XAI should support diagrammatic and abductive reasoning for the AI to perform hypothesis generation and evaluation to reduce the interpretability gap. We propose Diagrammatization to i) perform Peircean abductive-deductive reasoning, ii) follow domain conventions, and iii) explain with diagrams visually or verbally. We implemented DiagramNet for a clinical application to predict cardiac diagnoses from heart auscultation, and explain with shape-based murmur diagrams. In modeling studies, we found that DiagramNet not only provides faithful murmur shape explanations, but also has better prediction performance than baseline models. We further demonstrate the interpretability and trustworthiness of diagrammatic explanations in a qualitative user study with medical students, showing that clinically-relevant, diagrammatic explanations are preferred over technical saliency map explanations. This work contributes insights into providing domain-conventional abductive explanations for user-centric XAI.

An autonomous system is constructed by a manufacturer, operates in a society subject to norms and laws, and interacts with end users. All of these actors are stakeholders affected by the behavior of the autonomous system. We address the challenge of how the ethical views of such stakeholders can be integrated in the behavior of an autonomous system. We propose an ethical recommendation component called Jiminy which uses techniques from normative systems and formal argumentation to reach moral agreements among stakeholders. A Jiminy represents the ethical views of each stakeholder by using normative systems, and has three ways of resolving moral dilemmas that involve the opinions of the stakeholders. First, the Jiminy considers how the arguments of the stakeholders relate to one another, which may already resolve the dilemma. Secondly, the Jiminy combines the normative systems of the stakeholders such that the combined expertise of the stakeholders may resolve the dilemma. Thirdly, and only if these two other methods have failed, the Jiminy uses context-sensitive rules to decide which of the stakeholders take preference over the others. At the abstract level, these three methods are characterized by adding arguments, adding attacks between arguments, and revising attacks between arguments. We show how a Jiminy can be used not only for ethical reasoning and collaborative decision-making, but also to provide explanations about ethical behavior.

This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation developed elsewhere in Defeasible Logic can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation. With this done, we discuss the deontic meaning of this reconstruction and show how to build from argumentation neighborhood structures for deontic logic where this notion of explanation can be characterised. Some direct complexity results are offered.

Ante-hoc interpretability has become the holy grail of explainable artificial intelligence for high-stakes domains such as healthcare; however, this notion is elusive, lacks a widely-accepted definition and depends on the operational context. It can refer to predictive models whose structure adheres to domain-specific constraints, or ones that are inherently transparent. The latter conceptualisation assumes observers who judge this quality, whereas the former presupposes them to have technical and domain expertise (thus alienating other groups of explainees). Additionally, the distinction between ante-hoc interpretability and the less desirable post-hoc explainability, which refers to methods that construct a separate explanatory model, is vague given that transparent predictive models may still require (post-)processing to yield suitable explanatory insights. Ante-hoc interpretability is thus an overloaded concept that comprises a range of implicit properties, which we unpack in this paper to better understand what is needed for its safe adoption across high-stakes domains. To this end, we outline modelling and explaining desiderata that allow us to navigate its distinct realisations in view of the envisaged application and audience.

Time is a crucial factor in modelling dynamic behaviours of intelligent agents: activities have a determined temporal duration in a real-world environment, and previous actions influence agents' behaviour. In this paper, we propose a language for modelling concurrent interaction between agents that also allows the specification of temporal intervals in which particular actions occur. Such a language exploits a timed version of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks to realise a shared memory used by the agents to communicate and reason on the acceptability of their beliefs with respect to a given time interval. An interleaving model on a single processor is used for basic computation steps, with maximum parallelism for time elapsing. Following this approach, only one of the enabled agents is executed at each moment. To demonstrate the capabilities of language, we also show how it can be used to model interactions such as debates and dialogue games taking place between intelligent agents. Lastly, we present an implementation of the language that can be accessed via a web interface. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

We propose end-to-end multimodal fact-checking and explanation generation, where the input is a claim and a large collection of web sources, including articles, images, videos, and tweets, and the goal is to assess the truthfulness of the claim by retrieving relevant evidence and predicting a truthfulness label (e.g., support, refute or not enough information), and to generate a statement to summarize and explain the reasoning and ruling process. To support this research, we construct Mocheg, a large-scale dataset consisting of 15,601 claims where each claim is annotated with a truthfulness label and a ruling statement, and 33,880 textual paragraphs and 12,112 images in total as evidence. To establish baseline performances on Mocheg, we experiment with several state-of-the-art neural architectures on the three pipelined subtasks: multimodal evidence retrieval, claim verification, and explanation generation, and demonstrate that the performance of the state-of-the-art end-to-end multimodal fact-checking does not provide satisfactory outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to build the benchmark dataset and solutions for end-to-end multimodal fact-checking and explanation generation. The dataset, source code and model checkpoints are available at https://github.com/VT-NLP/Mocheg.

Explaining artificial intelligence or machine learning models is increasingly important. To use such data-driven systems wisely we must understand how they interact with the world, including how they depend causally on data inputs. In this work we develop Causal Dependence Plots (CDPs) to visualize how one variable--an outcome--depends on changes in another variable--a predictor--$\textit{along with any consequent causal changes in other predictor variables}$. Crucially, CDPs differ from standard methods based on holding other predictors constant or assuming they are independent. CDPs make use of an auxiliary causal model because causal conclusions require causal assumptions. With simulations and real data experiments, we show CDPs can be combined in a modular way with methods for causal learning or sensitivity analysis. Since people often think causally about input-output dependence, CDPs can be powerful tools in the xAI or interpretable machine learning toolkit and contribute to applications like scientific machine learning and algorithmic fairness.

Explainable AI is an evolving area that deals with understanding the decision making of machine learning models so that these models are more transparent, accountable, and understandable for humans. In particular, post-hoc model-agnostic interpretable AI techniques explain the decisions of a black-box ML model for a single instance locally, without the knowledge of the intrinsic nature of the ML model. Despite their simplicity and capability in providing valuable insights, existing approaches fail to deliver consistent and reliable explanations. Moreover, in the context of black-box classifiers, existing approaches justify the predicted class, but these methods do not ensure that the explanation scores strongly differ as compared to those of another class. In this work we propose a novel post-hoc model agnostic XAI technique that provides contrastive explanations justifying the classification of a black box classifier along with a reasoning as to why another class was not predicted. Our method, which we refer to as CLIMAX which is short for Contrastive Label-aware Influence-based Model Agnostic XAI, is based on local classifiers . In order to ensure model fidelity of the explainer, we require the perturbations to be such that it leads to a class-balanced surrogate dataset. Towards this, we employ a label-aware surrogate data generation method based on random oversampling and Gaussian Mixture Model sampling. Further, we propose influence subsampling in order to retaining effective samples and hence ensure sample complexity. We show that we achieve better consistency as compared to baselines such as LIME, BayLIME, and SLIME. We also depict results on textual and image based datasets, where we generate contrastive explanations for any black-box classification model where one is able to only query the class probabilities for an instance of interest.

Causal reasoning and logical reasoning are two important types of reasoning abilities for human intelligence. However, their relationship has not been extensively explored under machine intelligence context. In this paper, we explore how the two reasoning abilities can be jointly modeled to enhance both accuracy and explainability of machine learning models. More specifically, by integrating two important types of reasoning ability -- counterfactual reasoning and (neural) logical reasoning -- we propose Counterfactual Collaborative Reasoning (CCR), which conducts counterfactual logic reasoning to improve the performance. In particular, we use recommender system as an example to show how CCR alleviate data scarcity, improve accuracy and enhance transparency. Technically, we leverage counterfactual reasoning to generate "difficult" counterfactual training examples for data augmentation, which -- together with the original training examples -- can enhance the model performance. Since the augmented data is model irrelevant, they can be used to enhance any model, enabling the wide applicability of the technique. Besides, most of the existing data augmentation methods focus on "implicit data augmentation" over users' implicit feedback, while our framework conducts "explicit data augmentation" over users explicit feedback based on counterfactual logic reasoning. Experiments on three real-world datasets show that CCR achieves better performance than non-augmented models and implicitly augmented models, and also improves model transparency by generating counterfactual explanations.

Imbalanced data poses a significant challenge in classification as model performance is affected by insufficient learning from minority classes. Balancing methods are often used to address this problem. However, such techniques can lead to problems such as overfitting or loss of information. This study addresses a more challenging aspect of balancing methods - their impact on model behavior. To capture these changes, Explainable Artificial Intelligence tools are used to compare models trained on datasets before and after balancing. In addition to the variable importance method, this study uses the partial dependence profile and accumulated local effects techniques. Real and simulated datasets are tested, and an open-source Python package edgaro is developed to facilitate this analysis. The results obtained show significant changes in model behavior due to balancing methods, which can lead to biased models toward a balanced distribution. These findings confirm that balancing analysis should go beyond model performance comparisons to achieve higher reliability of machine learning models. Therefore, we propose a new method performance gain plot for informed data balancing strategy to make an optimal selection of balancing method by analyzing the measure of change in model behavior versus performance gain.