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.

Explanations of neural models aim to reveal a model's decision-making process for its predictions. However, recent work shows that current methods giving explanations such as saliency maps or counterfactuals can be misleading, as they are prone to present reasons that are unfaithful to the model's inner workings. This work explores the challenging question of evaluating the faithfulness of natural language explanations (NLEs). To this end, we present two tests. First, we propose a counterfactual input editor for inserting reasons that lead to counterfactual predictions but are not reflected by the NLEs. Second, we reconstruct inputs from the reasons stated in the generated NLEs and check how often they lead to the same predictions. Our tests can evaluate emerging NLE models, proving a fundamental tool in the development of faithful NLEs.

This paper is a contribution to the research on dynamics in assumption-based argumentation (ABA). We investigate situations where a given knowledge base undergoes certain changes. We show that two frequently investigated problems, namely enforcement of a given target atom and deciding strong equivalence of two given ABA frameworks, are intractable in general. Notably, these problems are both tractable for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) which admit a close correspondence to ABA by constructing semanticspreserving instances. Inspired by this observation, we search for tractable fragments for ABA frameworks by means of the instantiated AFs. We argue that the usual instantiation procedure is not suitable for the investigation of dynamic scenarios since too much information is lost when constructing the abstract framework. We thus consider an extension of AFs, called cvAFs, equipping arguments with conclusions and vulnerabilities in order to better anticipate their role after the underlying knowledge base is extended. We investigate enforcement and strong equivalence for cvAFs and present syntactic conditions to decide them. We show that the correspondence between cvAFs and ABA frameworks is close enough to capture dynamics in ABA. This yields the desired tractable fragment. We furthermore discuss consequences for the corresponding problems for logic programs.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) provides explanations for not interpretable machine learning (ML) models. While many technical approaches exist, there is a lack of validation of these techniques on real-world datasets. In this work, we present a use-case of XAI: an ML model which is trained to estimate electrification rates based on mobile phone data in Senegal. The data originate from the Data for Development challenge by Orange in 2014/15. We apply two model-agnostic, local explanation techniques and find that while the model can be verified, it is biased with respect to the population density. We conclude our paper by pointing to the two main challenges we encountered during our work: data processing and model design that might be restricted by currently available XAI methods, and the importance of domain knowledge to interpret explanations.

Model-agnostic feature attributions can provide local insights in complex ML models. If the explanation is correct, a domain expert can validate and trust the model's decision. However, if it contradicts the expert's knowledge, related work only corrects irrelevant features to improve the model. To allow for unlimited interaction, in this paper we provide model-agnostic implementations for two popular explanation methods (Occlusion and Shapley values) to enforce entirely different attributions in the complex model. For a particular set of samples, we use the corrected feature attributions to generate extra local data, which is used to retrain the model to have the right explanation for the samples. Through simulated and real data experiments on a variety of models we show how our proposed approach can significantly improve the model's performance only by augmenting its training dataset based on corrected explanations. Adding our interactive explanations to active learning settings increases the sample efficiency significantly and outperforms existing explanatory interactive strategies. Additionally we explore how a domain expert can provide feature attributions which are sufficiently correct to improve the model.

In the quest for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) one of the questions that frequently arises given a decision made by an AI system is, ``why was the decision made in this way?'' Formal approaches to explainability build a formal model of the AI system and use this to reason about the properties of the system. Given a set of feature values for an instance to be explained, and a resulting decision, a formal abductive explanation is a set of features, such that if they take the given value will always lead to the same decision. This explanation is useful, it shows that only some features were used in making the final decision. But it is narrow, it only shows that if the selected features take their given values the decision is unchanged. It's possible that some features may change values and still lead to the same decision. In this paper we formally define inflated explanations which is a set of features, and for each feature of set of values (always including the value of the instance being explained), such that the decision will remain unchanged. Inflated explanations are more informative than abductive explanations since e.g they allow us to see if the exact value of a feature is important, or it could be any nearby value. Overall they allow us to better understand the role of each feature in the decision. We show that we can compute inflated explanations for not that much greater cost than abductive explanations, and that we can extend duality results for abductive explanations also to inflated explanations.