Urban land use inference is a critically important task that aids in city planning and policy-making. Recently, the increased use of sensor and location technologies has facilitated the collection of multi-modal mobility data, offering valuable insights into daily activity patterns. Many studies have adopted advanced data-driven techniques to explore the potential of these multi-modal mobility data in land use inference. However, existing studies often process samples independently, ignoring the spatial correlations among neighbouring objects and heterogeneity among different services. Furthermore, the inherently low interpretability of complex deep learning methods poses a significant barrier in urban planning, where transparency and extrapolability are crucial for making long-term policy decisions. To overcome these challenges, we introduce an explainable framework for inferring land use that synergises heterogeneous graph neural networks (HGNs) with Explainable AI techniques, enhancing both accuracy and explainability. The empirical experiments demonstrate that the proposed HGNs significantly outperform baseline graph neural networks for all six land-use indicators, especially in terms of 'office' and 'sustenance'. As explanations, we consider feature attribution and counterfactual explanations. The analysis of feature attribution explanations shows that the symmetrical nature of the `residence' and 'work' categories predicted by the framework aligns well with the commuter's 'work' and 'recreation' activities in London. The analysis of the counterfactual explanations reveals that variations in node features and types are primarily responsible for the differences observed between the predicted land use distribution and the ideal mixed state. These analyses demonstrate that the proposed HGNs can suitably support urban stakeholders in their urban planning and policy-making.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

The diversity of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them a promising candidate for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing a method for supplementing LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, we introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by the supplemented LLM may be naturally explained to, and contested by, humans. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification. We obtain results that are competitive with, and in some cases surpass, comparable state-of-the-art techniques.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition triggered by an extreme infection response. Our objective is to forecast sepsis patient outcomes using their medical history and treatments, while learning interpretable state representations to assess patients' risks in developing various adverse outcomes. While neural networks excel in outcome prediction, their limited interpretability remains a key issue. In this work, we use knowledge distillation via constrained variational inference to distill the knowledge of a powerful "teacher" neural network model with high predictive power to train a "student" latent variable model to learn interpretable hidden state representations to achieve high predictive performance for sepsis outcome prediction. Using real-world data from the MIMIC-IV database, we trained an LSTM as the "teacher" model to predict mortality for sepsis patients, given information about their recent history of vital signs, lab values and treatments. For our student model, we use an autoregressive hidden Markov model (AR-HMM) to learn interpretable hidden states from patients' clinical time series, and use the posterior distribution of the learned state representations to predict various downstream outcomes, including hospital mortality, pulmonary edema, need for diuretics, dialysis, and mechanical ventilation. Our results show that our approach successfully incorporates the constraint to achieve high predictive power similar to the teacher model, while maintaining the generative performance.

Feature attribution methods are widely used to explain neural models by determining the influence of individual input features on the models' outputs. We propose a novel feature attribution method, CAFE (Conflict-Aware Feature-wise Explanations), that addresses three limitations of the existing methods: their disregard for the impact of conflicting features, their lack of consideration for the influence of bias terms, and an overly high sensitivity to local variations in the underpinning activation functions. Unlike other methods, CAFE provides safeguards against overestimating the effects of neuron inputs and separately traces positive and negative influences of input features and biases, resulting in enhanced robustness and increased ability to surface feature conflicts. We show experimentally that CAFE is better able to identify conflicting features on synthetic tabular data and exhibits the best overall fidelity on several real-world tabular datasets, while being highly computationally efficient.

We present RadGraph2, a novel dataset for extracting information from radiology reports that focuses on capturing changes in disease state and device placement over time. We introduce a hierarchical schema that organizes entities based on their relationships and show that using this hierarchy during training improves the performance of an information extraction model. Specifically, we propose a modification to the DyGIE++ framework, resulting in our model HGIE, which outperforms previous models in entity and relation extraction tasks. We demonstrate that RadGraph2 enables models to capture a wider variety of findings and perform better at relation extraction compared to those trained on the original RadGraph dataset. Our work provides the foundation for developing automated systems that can track disease progression over time and develop information extraction models that leverage the natural hierarchy of labels in the medical domain.