Counterfactual (CF) explanations, also known as contrastive explanations and algorithmic recourses, are popular for explaining machine learning models in high-stakes domains. For a subject that receives a negative model prediction (e.g., mortgage application denial), the CF explanations are similar instances but with positive predictions, which informs the subject of ways to improve. While their various properties have been studied, such as validity and stability, we contribute a novel one: their behaviors under iterative partial fulfillment (IPF). Specifically, upon receiving a CF explanation, the subject may only partially fulfill it before requesting a new prediction with a new explanation, and repeat until the prediction is positive. Such partial fulfillment could be due to the subject's limited capability (e.g., can only pay down two out of four credit card accounts at this moment) or an attempt to take the chance (e.g., betting that a monthly salary increase of \$800 is enough even though \$1,000 is recommended). Does such iterative partial fulfillment increase or decrease the total cost of improvement incurred by the subject? We mathematically formalize IPF and demonstrate, both theoretically and empirically, that different CF algorithms exhibit vastly different behaviors under IPF. We discuss implications of our observations, advocate for this factor to be carefully considered in the development and study of CF algorithms, and give several directions for future work.

Machine learning is frequently used in affective computing, but presents challenges due the opacity of state-of-the-art machine learning methods. Because of the impact affective machine learning systems may have on an individual's life, it is important that models be made transparent to detect and mitigate biased decision making. In this regard, affective machine learning could benefit from the recent advancements in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) research. We perform a structured literature review to examine the use of interpretability in the context of affective machine learning. We focus on studies using audio, visual, or audiovisual data for model training and identified 29 research articles. Our findings show an emergence of the use of interpretability methods in the last five years. However, their use is currently limited regarding the range of methods used, the depth of evaluations, and the consideration of use-cases. We outline the main gaps in the research and provide recommendations for researchers that aim to implement interpretable methods for affective machine learning.

AI explanations are often mentioned as a way to improve human-AI decision-making, but empirical studies have not found consistent evidence of explanations' effectiveness and, on the contrary, suggest that they can increase overreliance when the AI system is wrong. While many factors may affect reliance on AI support, one important factor is how decision-makers reconcile their own intuition -- beliefs or heuristics, based on prior knowledge, experience, or pattern recognition, used to make judgments -- with the information provided by the AI system to determine when to override AI predictions. We conduct a think-aloud, mixed-methods study with two explanation types (feature- and example-based) for two prediction tasks to explore how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations, and ultimately their choice of when to rely on AI. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations: intuition about the task outcome, features, and AI limitations. Building on these, we summarize three observed pathways for decision-makers to apply their own intuition and override AI predictions. We use these pathways to explain why (1) the feature-based explanations we used did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI, and (2) the example-based explanations we used improved decision-makers' performance over feature-based explanations and helped achieve complementary human-AI performance. Overall, our work identifies directions for further development of AI decision-support systems and explanation methods that help decision-makers effectively apply their intuition to achieve appropriate reliance on AI.

EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a vibrant research topic in the artificial intelligence community, with growing interest across methods and domains. Much has been written about the subject, yet XAI still lacks shared terminology and a framework capable of providing structural soundness to explanations. In our work, we address these issues by proposing a novel definition of explanation that is a synthesis of what can be found in the literature. We recognize that explanations are not atomic but the combination of evidence stemming from the model and its input-output mapping, and the human interpretation of this evidence. Furthermore, we fit explanations into the properties of faithfulness (i.e., the explanation being a true description of the model's inner workings and decision-making process) and plausibility (i.e., how much the explanation looks convincing to the user). Using our proposed theoretical framework simplifies how these properties are operationalized and it provides new insight into common explanation methods that we analyze as case studies.

Post-hoc explanation techniques such as the well-established partial dependence plot (PDP), which investigates feature dependencies, are used in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand black-box machine learning models. While many real-world applications require dynamic models that constantly adapt over time and react to changes in the underlying distribution, XAI, so far, has primarily considered static learning environments, where models are trained in a batch mode and remain unchanged. We thus propose a novel model-agnostic XAI framework called incremental PDP (iPDP) that extends on the PDP to extract time-dependent feature effects in non-stationary learning environments. We formally analyze iPDP and show that it approximates a time-dependent variant of the PDP that properly reacts to real and virtual concept drift. The time-sensitivity of iPDP is controlled by a single smoothing parameter, which directly corresponds to the variance and the approximation error of iPDP in a static learning environment. We illustrate the efficacy of iPDP by showcasing an example application for drift detection and conducting multiple experiments on real-world and synthetic data sets and streams.

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) are a popular approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), highlighting changes to input data necessary for altering a model's output. A CFE can either describe a scenario that is better than the factual state (upward CFE), or a scenario that is worse than the factual state (downward CFE). However, potential benefits and drawbacks of the directionality of CFEs for user behavior in xAI remain unclear. The current user study (N=161) compares the impact of CFE directionality on behavior and experience of participants tasked to extract new knowledge from an automated system based on model predictions and CFEs. Results suggest that upward CFEs provide a significant performance advantage over other forms of counterfactual feedback. Moreover, the study highlights potential benefits of mixed CFEs improving user performance compared to downward CFEs or no explanations. In line with the performance results, users' explicit knowledge of the system is statistically higher after receiving upward CFEs compared to downward comparisons. These findings imply that the alignment between explanation and task at hand, the so-called regulatory fit, may play a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of model explanations, informing future research directions in xAI. To ensure reproducible research, the entire code, underlying models and user data of this study is openly available: https://github.com/ukuhl/DirectionalAlienZoo

B2B sales requires effective prediction of customer growth, identification of upsell potential, and mitigation of churn risks. LinkedIn sales representatives traditionally relied on intuition and fragmented data signals to assess customer performance. This resulted in significant time investment in data understanding as well as strategy formulation and under-investment in active selling. To overcome this challenge, we developed a data product called Account Prioritizer, an intelligent sales account prioritization engine. It uses machine learning recommendation models and integrated account-level explanation algorithms within the sales CRM to automate the manual process of sales book prioritization. A successful A/B test demonstrated that the Account Prioritizer generated a substantial +8.08% increase in renewal bookings for the LinkedIn Business.

The rise of machine learning (ML) is accompanied by several high-profile cases that have stressed the need for fairness, accountability, explainability and trust in ML systems. The existing literature has largely focused on fully automated ML approaches that try to optimize for some performance metric. However, human-centric measures like fairness, trust, explainability, etc. are subjective in nature, context-dependent, and might not correlate with conventional performance metrics. To deal with these challenges, we explore a human-centered AI approach that empowers people by providing more transparency and human control. In this dissertation, we present 5 research projects that aim to enhance explainability and fairness in classification systems and word embeddings. The first project explores the utility/downsides of introducing local model explanations as interfaces for machine teachers (crowd workers). Our study found that adding explanations supports trust calibration for the resulting ML model and enables rich forms of teaching feedback. The second project presents D-BIAS, a causality-based human-in-the-loop visual tool for identifying and mitigating social biases in tabular datasets. Apart from fairness, we found that our tool also enhances trust and accountability. The third project presents WordBias, a visual interactive tool that helps audit pre-trained static word embeddings for biases against groups, such as females, or subgroups, such as Black Muslim females. The fourth project presents DramatVis Personae, a visual analytics tool that helps identify social biases in creative writing. Finally, the last project presents an empirical study aimed at understanding the cumulative impact of multiple fairness-enhancing interventions at different stages of the ML pipeline on fairness, utility and different population groups. We conclude by discussing some of the future directions.

This paper continues an established line of research about the relations between argumentation theory, particularly assumption-based argumentation, and different kinds of logic programs. In particular, we extend known result of Caminada, Schultz and Toni by showing that assumption-based argumentation can represent not only normal logic programs, but also disjunctive logic programs and their extensions. For this, we consider some inference rules for disjunction that the core logic of the argumentation frameworks should respect, and show the correspondence to the handling of disjunctions in the heads of the logic programs' rules.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.