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.

This paper presents a novel framework for structured argumentation, named extend argumentative decision graph ($xADG$). It is an extension of argumentative decision graphs built upon Dung's abstract argumentation graphs. The $xADG$ framework allows for arguments to use boolean logic operators and multiple premises (supports) within their internal structure, resulting in more concise argumentation graphs that may be easier for users to understand. The study presents a methodology for construction of $xADGs$ and evaluates their size and predictive capacity for classification tasks of varying magnitudes. Resulting $xADGs$ achieved strong (balanced) accuracy, which was accomplished through an input decision tree, while also reducing the average number of supports needed to reach a conclusion. The results further indicated that it is possible to construct plausibly understandable $xADGs$ that outperform other techniques for building $ADGs$ in terms of predictive capacity and overall size. In summary, the study suggests that $xADG$ represents a promising framework to developing more concise argumentative models that can be used for classification tasks and knowledge discovery, acquisition, and refinement.

The increasing prevalence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in safety-critical contexts such as air-traffic control leads to systems that are practical and efficient, and to some extent explainable to humans to be trusted and accepted. The present structured literature analysis examines n = 236 articles on the requirements for the explainability and acceptance of AI. Results include a comprehensive review of n = 48 articles on information people need to perceive an AI as explainable, the information needed to accept an AI, and representation and interaction methods promoting trust in an AI. Results indicate that the two main groups of users are developers who require information about the internal operations of the model and end users who require information about AI results or behavior. Users' information needs vary in specificity, complexity, and urgency and must consider context, domain knowledge, and the user's cognitive resources. The acceptance of AI systems depends on information about the system's functions and performance, privacy and ethical considerations, as well as goal-supporting information tailored to individual preferences and information to establish trust in the system. Information about the system's limitations and potential failures can increase acceptance and trust. Trusted interaction methods are human-like, including natural language, speech, text, and visual representations such as graphs, charts, and animations. Our results have significant implications for future human-centric AI systems being developed. Thus, they are suitable as input for further application-specific investigations of user needs.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used in more and more high-stakes domains of our life such as justice [Berk, 2012], healthcare [Callahan and Shah, 2017], and finance [Lessmann et al., 2015], increasing the need to explain these decisions and to make sure that they are aligned with how we want the decision to be made. However, the complexity of many AI systems makes them challenging to comprehend, posing a significant barrier to their implementation and oversight [Arrieta et al., 2020, Samek et al., 2019]. Legislative initiatives, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have recognized the'right for explanation' for individuals affected by algorithmic-decision making, emphasizing the legal necessity of explainability [Goodman and Flaxman, 2017]. In response, the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged, aimed at developing methods for explaining the decision-making processes of AI models [Adadi and Berrada, 2018, Holzinger et al., 2022, Xu et al., 2019]. Nevertheless, the landscape of post-hoc explanations is diverse, and each method can yield a different explanation. Furthermore, even within a single explanation method, multiple explanations can be generated for the same instance or decision. This phenomenon, known as the disagreement problem, has been studied in literature [Brughmans et al.,

Detecting and predicting septic shock early is crucial for the best possible outcome for patients. Accurately forecasting the vital signs of patients with sepsis provides valuable insights to clinicians for timely interventions, such as administering stabilizing drugs or optimizing infusion strategies. Our research examines N-BEATS, an interpretable deep-learning forecasting model that can forecast 3 hours of vital signs for sepsis patients in intensive care units (ICUs). In this work, we use the N-BEATS interpretable configuration to forecast the vital sign trends and compare them with the actual trend to understand better the patient's changing condition and the effects of infused drugs on their vital signs. We evaluate our approach using the publicly available eICU Collaborative Research Database dataset and rigorously evaluate the vital sign forecasts using out-of-sample evaluation criteria. We present the performance of our model using error metrics, including mean squared error (MSE), mean average percentage error (MAPE), and dynamic time warping (DTW), where the best scores achieved are 18.52e-4, 7.60, and 17.63e-3, respectively. We analyze the samples where the forecasted trend does not match the actual trend and study the impact of infused drugs on changing the actual vital signs compared to the forecasted trend. Additionally, we examined the mortality rates of patients where the actual trend and the forecasted trend did not match. We observed that the mortality rate was higher (92%) when the actual and forecasted trends closely matched, compared to when they were not similar (84%).

Interpretable time series prediction is crucial for safety-critical areas such as healthcare and autonomous driving. Most existing methods focus on interpreting predictions by assigning important scores to segments of time series. In this paper, we take a different and more challenging route and aim at developing a self-interpretable model, dubbed Counterfactual Time Series (CounTS), which generates counterfactual and actionable explanations for time series predictions. Specifically, we formalize the problem of time series counterfactual explanations, establish associated evaluation protocols, and propose a variational Bayesian deep learning model equipped with counterfactual inference capability of time series abduction, action, and prediction. Compared with state-of-the-art baselines, our self-interpretable model can generate better counterfactual explanations while maintaining comparable prediction accuracy.