Data-driven optimization uses contextual information and machine learning algorithms to find solutions to decision problems with uncertain parameters. While a vast body of work is dedicated to interpreting machine learning models in the classification setting, explaining decision pipelines involving learning algorithms remains unaddressed. This lack of interpretability can block the adoption of data-driven solutions as practitioners may not understand or trust the recommended decisions. We bridge this gap by introducing a counterfactual explanation methodology tailored to explain solutions to data-driven problems. We introduce two classes of explanations and develop methods to find nearest explanations of random forest and nearest-neighbor predictors. We demonstrate our approach by explaining key problems in operations management such as inventory management and routing.

Counterfactual explanations are the de facto standard when tasked with interpreting decisions of (opaque) predictive models. Their generation is often subject to algorithmic and domain-specific constraints -- such as density-based feasibility and attribute (im)mutability or directionality of change -- that aim to maximise their real-life utility. In addition to desiderata with respect to the counterfactual instance itself, existence of a viable path connecting it with the factual data point, known as algorithmic recourse, has become an important technical consideration. While both of these requirements ensure that the steps of the journey as well as its destination are admissible, current literature neglects the multiplicity of such counterfactual paths. To address this shortcoming we introduce the novel concept of explanatory multiverse that encompasses all the possible counterfactual journeys; we then show how to navigate, reason about and compare the geometry of these trajectories -- their affinity, branching, divergence and possible future convergence -- with two methods: vector spaces and graphs. Implementing this (interactive) explanatory process grants explainees agency by allowing them to select counterfactuals based on the properties of the journey leading to them in addition to their absolute differences.

Our work serves as a framework for unifying the challenges of contemporary explainable AI (XAI). We demonstrate that while XAI methods provide supplementary and potentially useful output for machine learning models, researchers and decision-makers should be mindful of their conceptual and technical limitations, which frequently result in these methods themselves becoming black boxes. We examine three XAI research avenues spanning image, textual, and graph data, covering saliency, attention, and graph-type explainers. Despite the varying contexts and timeframes of the mentioned cases, the same persistent roadblocks emerge, highlighting the need for a conceptual breakthrough in the field to address the challenge of compatibility between XAI methods and application tasks.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has received widespread interest in recent years, and two of the most popular types of explanations are feature attributions, and counterfactual explanations. These classes of approaches have been largely studied independently and the few attempts at reconciling them have been primarily empirical. This work establishes a clear theoretical connection between game-theoretic feature attributions, focusing on but not limited to SHAP, and counterfactuals explanations. After motivating operative changes to Shapley values based feature attributions and counterfactual explanations, we prove that, under conditions, they are in fact equivalent. We then extend the equivalency result to game-theoretic solution concepts beyond Shapley values. Moreover, through the analysis of the conditions of such equivalence, we shed light on the limitations of naively using counterfactual explanations to provide feature importances. Experiments on three datasets quantitatively show the difference in explanations at every stage of the connection between the two approaches and corroborate the theoretical findings.

A common feature of non-monotonic logics is that the classical notion of equivalence does not preserve the intended meaning in light of additional information. Consequently, the term strong equivalence was coined in the literature and thoroughly investigated. In the present paper, the knowledge representation formalism under consideration is claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) which provide a formal basis to analyze conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation by adapting a claim-focused perspective. CAFs extend Dung AFs by associating a claim to each argument representing its conclusion. In this paper, we investigate both ordinary and strong equivalence in CAFs. Thereby, we take the fact into account that one might either be interested in the actual arguments or their claims only. The former point of view naturally yields an extension of strong equivalence for AFs to the claim-based setting while the latter gives rise to a novel equivalence notion which is genuine for CAFs. We tailor, examine and compare these notions and obtain a comprehensive study of this matter for CAFs. We conclude by investigating the computational complexity of naturally arising decision problems.

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).