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.

This work presents CounterNet, a novel end-to-end learning framework which integrates Machine Learning (ML) model training and the generation of corresponding counterfactual (CF) explanations into a single end-to-end pipeline. Counterfactual explanations offer a contrastive case, i.e., they attempt to find the smallest modification to the feature values of an instance that changes the prediction of the ML model on that instance to a predefined output. Prior techniques for generating CF explanations suffer from two major limitations: (i) all of them are post-hoc methods designed for use with proprietary ML models -- as a result, their procedure for generating CF explanations is uninformed by the training of the ML model, which leads to misalignment between model predictions and explanations; and (ii) most of them rely on solving separate time-intensive optimization problems to find CF explanations for each input data point (which negatively impacts their runtime). This work makes a novel departure from the prevalent post-hoc paradigm (of generating CF explanations) by presenting CounterNet, an end-to-end learning framework which integrates predictive model training and the generation of counterfactual (CF) explanations into a single pipeline. Unlike post-hoc methods, CounterNet enables the optimization of the CF explanation generation only once together with the predictive model. We adopt a block-wise coordinate descent procedure which helps in effectively training CounterNet's network. Our extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets show that CounterNet generates high-quality predictions, and consistently achieves 100% CF validity and low proximity scores (thereby achieving a well-balanced cost-invalidity trade-off) for any new input instance, and runs 3X faster than existing state-of-the-art baselines.

The absence of transparency and explainability hinders the clinical adoption of Machine learning (ML) algorithms. Although various methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) have been suggested, there is a lack of literature that delves into their practicality and assesses them based on criteria that could foster trust in clinical environments. To address this gap this study evaluates two popular XAI methods used for explaining predictive models in the healthcare context in terms of whether they (i) generate domain-appropriate representation, i.e. coherent with respect to the application task, (ii) impact clinical workflow and (iii) are consistent. To that end, explanations generated at the cohort and patient levels were analysed. The paper reports the first benchmarking of the XAI methods applied to risk prediction models obtained by evaluating the concordance between generated explanations and the trigger of a future clinical deterioration episode recorded by the data collection system. We carried out an analysis using two Electronic Medical Records (EMR) datasets sourced from Australian major hospitals. The findings underscore the limitations of state-of-the-art XAI methods in the clinical context and their potential benefits. We discuss these limitations and contribute to the theoretical development of trustworthy XAI solutions where clinical decision support guides the choice of intervention by suggesting the pattern or drivers for clinical deterioration in the future.

ML-based program cost models have been shown to yield fairly accurate program cost predictions. They can replace heavily-engineered analytical program cost models in mainstream compilers, but their black-box nature discourages their adoption. In this work, we propose the first framework, COMET, for generating faithful, generalizable, and intuitive explanations for x86 cost models. COMET brings interpretability specifically to ML-based cost models, such as Ithemal. We generate and compare COMET's explanations for Ithemal against COMET's explanations for a hand-crafted, accurate analytical model, uiCA. Our empirical findings show an inverse correlation between the error in the cost prediction of a cost model and the prominence of semantically-richer features in COMET's explanations for the cost model for a given x86 basic block.

With the growing concern for air quality and its impact on human health, interest in environmental gas monitoring has increased. However, chemi-resistive gas sensing devices are plagued by issues of sensor reproducibility during manufacturing. This study proposes a novel approach for detecting sensor-to-sensor variations in sensing devices using the explainable AI (XAI) method of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). This is achieved by identifying sensors that contribute the most to environmental gas concentration estimation via machine learning, and measuring the similarity of feature rankings between sensors to flag deviations or outliers. The methodology is tested using artificial and realistic Ozone concentration profiles to train a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) model. Two applications were explored in the study: the detection of wrong behaviors of sensors in the train dataset, and the detection of deviations in the test dataset. By training the GRU with the pruned train dataset, we could reduce computational costs while improving the model performance. Overall, the results show that our approach improves the understanding of sensor behavior, successfully detects sensor deviations down to 5-10% from the normal behavior, and leads to more efficient model preparation and calibration. Our method provides a novel solution for identifying deviating sensors, linking inconsistencies in hardware to sensor-to-sensor variations in the manufacturing process on an AI model-level.

Given the dynamic nature of toxic language use, automated methods for detecting toxic spans are likely to encounter distributional shift. To explore this phenomenon, we evaluate three approaches for detecting toxic spans under cross-domain conditions: lexicon-based, rationale extraction, and fine-tuned language models. Our findings indicate that a simple method using off-the-shelf lexicons performs best in the cross-domain setup. The cross-domain error analysis suggests that (1) rationale extraction methods are prone to false negatives, while (2) language models, despite performing best for the in-domain case, recall fewer explicitly toxic words than lexicons and are prone to certain types of false positives. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/