Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) fills the role of a critical interface fostering interactions between sophisticated intelligent systems and diverse individuals, including data scientists, domain experts, end-users, and more. It aids in deciphering the intricate internal mechanisms of ``black box'' Machine Learning (ML), rendering the reasons behind their decisions more understandable. However, current research in XAI primarily focuses on two aspects; ways to facilitate user trust, or to debug and refine the ML model. The majority of it falls short of recognising the diverse types of explanations needed in broader contexts, as different users and varied application areas necessitate solutions tailored to their specific needs. One such domain is Predictive Maintenance (PdM), an exploding area of research under the Industry 4.0 \& 5.0 umbrella. This position paper highlights the gap between existing XAI methodologies and the specific requirements for explanations within industrial applications, particularly the Predictive Maintenance field. Despite explainability's crucial role, this subject remains a relatively under-explored area, making this paper a pioneering attempt to bring relevant challenges to the research community's attention. We provide an overview of predictive maintenance tasks and accentuate the need and varying purposes for corresponding explanations. We then list and describe XAI techniques commonly employed in the literature, discussing their suitability for PdM tasks. Finally, to make the ideas and claims more concrete, we demonstrate XAI applied in four specific industrial use cases: commercial vehicles, metro trains, steel plants, and wind farms, spotlighting areas requiring further research.

This paper presents ExplainableFold, an explainable AI framework for protein structure prediction. Despite the success of AI-based methods such as AlphaFold in this field, the underlying reasons for their predictions remain unclear due to the black-box nature of deep learning models. To address this, we propose a counterfactual learning framework inspired by biological principles to generate counterfactual explanations for protein structure prediction, enabling a dry-lab experimentation approach. Our experimental results demonstrate the ability of ExplainableFold to generate high-quality explanations for AlphaFold's predictions, providing near-experimental understanding of the effects of amino acids on 3D protein structure. This framework has the potential to facilitate a deeper understanding of protein structures.

Recent progress towards theoretical interpretability guarantees for AI has been made with classifiers that are based on interactive proof systems. A prover selects a certificate from the datapoint and sends it to a verifier who decides the class. In the context of machine learning, such a certificate can be a feature that is informative of the class. For a setup with high soundness and completeness, the exchanged certificates must have a high mutual information with the true class of the datapoint. However, this guarantee relies on a bound on the Asymmetric Feature Correlation of the dataset, a property that so far is difficult to estimate for high-dimensional data. It was conjectured in W\"aldchen et al. that it is computationally hard to exploit the AFC, which is what we prove here. We consider a malicious prover-verifier duo that aims to exploit the AFC to achieve high completeness and soundness while using uninformative certificates. We show that this task is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard and cannot be approximated better than $\mathcal{O}(m^{1/8 - \epsilon})$, where $m$ is the number of possible certificates, for $\epsilon>0$ under the Dense-vs-Random conjecture. This is some evidence that AFC should not prevent the use of interactive classification for real-world tasks, as it is computationally hard to be exploited.

Despite progress in the field, significant parts of current XAI research are still not on solid conceptual, ethical, or methodological grounds. Unfortunately, these unfounded parts are not on the decline but continue to grow. Many explanation techniques are still proposed without clarifying their purpose. Instead, they are advertised with ever more fancy-looking heatmaps or only seemingly relevant benchmarks. Moreover, explanation techniques are motivated with questionable goals, such as building trust, or rely on strong assumptions about the 'concepts' that deep learning algorithms learn. In this paper, we highlight and discuss these and other misconceptions in current XAI research. We also suggest steps to make XAI a more substantive area of research.

Epistemic graphs are a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. Hunter proposed a 2-way generalization framework to learn epistemic constraints from crowd-sourcing data. However, the learnt epistemic constraints only reflect users' beliefs from data, without considering the rationality encoded in epistemic graphs. Meanwhile, the current framework can only generate epistemic constraints that reflect whether an agent believes an argument, but not the degree to which it believes in it. The major challenge to achieving this effect is that the computational complexity will increase sharply when expanding the variety of constraints, which may lead to unacceptable time performance. To address these problems, we propose a filtering-based approach using a multiple-way generalization step to generate a set of rational rules which are consistent with their epistemic graphs from a dataset. This approach is able to learn a wider variety of rational rules that reflect information in both the domain model and the user model. Moreover, to improve computational efficiency, we introduce a new function to exclude meaningless rules. The empirical results show that our approach significantly outperforms the existing framework when expanding the variety of rules.

This paper investigates the prospect of developing human-interpretable, explainable artificial intelligence (AI) systems based on active inference and the free energy principle. We first provide a brief overview of active inference, and in particular, of how it applies to the modeling of decision-making, introspection, as well as the generation of overt and covert actions. We then discuss how active inference can be leveraged to design explainable AI systems, namely, by allowing us to model core features of ``introspective'' processes and by generating useful, human-interpretable models of the processes involved in decision-making. We propose an architecture for explainable AI systems using active inference. This architecture foregrounds the role of an explicit hierarchical generative model, the operation of which enables the AI system to track and explain the factors that contribute to its own decisions, and whose structure is designed to be interpretable and auditable by human users. We outline how this architecture can integrate diverse sources of information to make informed decisions in an auditable manner, mimicking or reproducing aspects of human-like consciousness and introspection. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for future research in AI, and the potential ethical considerations of developing AI systems with (the appearance of) introspective capabilities.

Clinical practice in psychiatry is burdened with the increased demand for healthcare services and the scarce resources available. New paradigms of health data powered with machine learning techniques could open the possibility to improve clinical workflow in critical stages of clinical assessment and treatment in psychiatry. In this work, we propose a machine learning system capable of predicting, detecting, and explaining individual changes in symptoms of patients with Schizophrenia by using behavioral digital phenotyping data. We forecast symptoms of patients with an error rate below 10%. The system detects decreases in symptoms using changepoint algorithms and uses counterfactual explanations as a recourse in a simulated continuous monitoring scenario in healthcare. Overall, this study offers valuable insights into the performance and potential of counterfactual explanations, predictive models, and change-point detection within a simulated clinical workflow. These findings lay the foundation for further research to explore additional facets of the workflow, aiming to enhance its effectiveness and applicability in real-world healthcare settings. By leveraging these components, the goal is to develop an actionable, interpretable, and trustworthy integrative decision support system that combines real-time clinical assessments with sensor-based inputs.

The industry 4.0 is leveraging digital technologies and machine learning techniques to connect and optimize manufacturing processes. Central to this idea is the ability to transform raw data into human understandable knowledge for reliable data-driven decision-making. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been instrumental in processing image data, yet, their ``black box'' nature complicates the understanding of their prediction process. In this context, recent advances in the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) have proposed the extraction and localization of concepts, or which visual cues intervene on the prediction process of CNNs. This paper tackles the application of concept extraction (CE) methods to industry 4.0 scenarios. To this end, we modify a recently developed technique, ``Extracting Concepts with Local Aggregated Descriptors'' (ECLAD), improving its scalability. Specifically, we propose a novel procedure for calculating concept importance, utilizing a wrapper function designed for CNNs. This process is aimed at decreasing the number of times each image needs to be evaluated. Subsequently, we demonstrate the potential of CE methods, by applying them in three industrial use cases. We selected three representative use cases in the context of quality control for material design (tailored textiles), manufacturing (carbon fiber reinforcement), and maintenance (photovoltaic module inspection). In these examples, CE was able to successfully extract and locate concepts directly related to each task. This is, the visual cues related to each concept, coincided with what human experts would use to perform the task themselves, even when the visual cues were entangled between multiple classes. Through empirical results, we show that CE can be applied for understanding CNNs in an industrial context, giving useful insights that can relate to domain knowledge.

Self-rationalizing models that also generate a free-text explanation for their predicted labels are an important tool to build trustworthy AI applications. Since generating explanations for annotated labels is a laborious and costly pro cess, recent models rely on large pretrained language models (PLMs) as their backbone and few-shot learning. In this work we explore a self-training approach leveraging both labeled and unlabeled data to further improve few-shot models, under the assumption that neither human written rationales nor annotated task labels are available at scale. We introduce a novel dual-teacher learning framework, which learns two specialized teacher models for task prediction and rationalization using self-training and distills their knowledge into a multi-tasking student model that can jointly generate the task label and rationale. Furthermore, we formulate a new loss function, Masked Label Regularization (MLR) which promotes explanations to be strongly conditioned on predicted labels. Evaluation on three public datasets demonstrate that the proposed methods are effective in modeling task labels and generating faithful rationales.

With the increasing diversity of use cases of large language models, a more informative treatment of texts seems necessary. An argumentative analysis could foster a more reasoned usage of chatbots, text completion mechanisms or other applications. However, it is unclear which aspects of argumentation can be reliably identified and integrated in language models. In this paper, we present an empirical assessment of the reliability with which different argumentative aspects can be automatically identified in hate speech in social media. We have enriched the Hateval corpus (Basile et al. 2019) with a manual annotation of some argumentative components, adapted from Wagemans (2016)'s Periodic Table of Arguments. We show that some components can be identified with reasonable reliability. For those that present a high error ratio, we analyze the patterns of disagreement between expert annotators and errors in automatic procedures, and we propose adaptations of those categories that can be more reliably reproduced.