This position paper argues that, to its detriment, transparency research overlooks many foundational concepts of artificial intelligence. Here, we focus on uncertainty quantification -- in the context of ante-hoc interpretability and counterfactual explainability -- showing how its adoption could address key challenges in the field. First, we posit that uncertainty and ante-hoc interpretability offer complementary views of the same underlying idea; second, we assert that uncertainty provides a principled unifying framework for counterfactual explainability. Consequently, inherently transparent models can benefit from human-centred explanatory insights -- like counterfactuals -- which are otherwise missing. At a higher level, integrating artificial intelligence fundamentals into transparency research promises to yield more reliable, robust and understandable predictive models.

Algorithmic recourse provides actions to individuals who have been adversely affected by automated decision-making and helps them achieve a desired outcome. Knowing the recourse, however, does not guarantee that users would implement it perfectly, either due to environmental variability or personal choices. Recourse generation should thus anticipate its sub-optimal or noisy implementation. While several approaches have constructed recourse that accounts for robustness to small perturbation (i.e., noisy recourse implementation), they assume an entire recourse to be implemented in a single step and thus apply one-off uniform noise to it. Such assumption is unrealistic since recourse often includes multiple sequential steps which becomes harder to implement and subject to more noise. In this work, we consider recourse under plausible noise that adapts to the local data geometry and accumulates at every step of the way. We frame this problem as a Markov Decision Process and demonstrate that the distribution of our plausible noise satisfies the Markov property. We then propose the RObust SEquential (ROSE) recourse generator to output a sequence of steps that will lead to the desired outcome even under imperfect implementation. Given our plausible modelling of sub-optimal human actions and greater recourse robustness to accumulated uncertainty, ROSE can grant users higher chances of success under low recourse costs. Empirical evaluation shows our algorithm manages the inherent trade-off between recourse robustness and costs more effectively while ensuring its low sparsity and fast computation.

Despite significant progress, evaluation of explainable artificial intelligence remains elusive and challenging. In this paper we propose a fine-grained validation framework that is not overly reliant on any one facet of these sociotechnical systems, and that recognises their inherent modular structure: technical building blocks, user-facing explanatory artefacts and social communication protocols. While we concur that user studies are invaluable in assessing the quality and effectiveness of explanation presentation and delivery strategies from the explainees' perspective in a particular deployment context, the underlying explanation generation mechanisms require a separate, predominantly algorithmic validation strategy that accounts for the technical and human-centred desiderata of their (numerical) outputs. Such a comprehensive sociotechnical utility-based evaluation framework could allow to systematically reason about the properties and downstream influence of different building blocks from which explainable artificial intelligence systems are composed -- accounting for a diverse range of their engineering and social aspects -- in view of the anticipated use case.

Counterfactuals operationalised through algorithmic recourse have become a powerful tool to make artificial intelligence systems explainable. Conceptually, given an individual classified as y -- the factual -- we seek actions such that their prediction becomes the desired class y' -- the counterfactual. This process offers algorithmic recourse that is (1) easy to customise and interpret, and (2) directly aligned with the goals of each individual. However, the properties of a "good" counterfactual are still largely debated; it remains an open challenge to effectively locate a counterfactual along with its corresponding recourse. Some strategies use gradient-driven methods, but these offer no guarantees on the feasibility of the recourse and are open to adversarial attacks on carefully created manifolds. This can lead to unfairness and lack of robustness. Other methods are data-driven, which mostly addresses the feasibility problem at the expense of privacy, security and secrecy as they require access to the entire training data set. Here, we introduce LocalFACE, a model-agnostic technique that composes feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations using locally-acquired information at each step of the algorithmic recourse. Our explainer preserves the privacy of users by only leveraging data that it specifically requires to construct actionable algorithmic recourse, and protects the model by offering transparency solely in the regions deemed necessary for the intervention.

While data-driven predictive models are a strictly technological construct, they may operate within a social context in which benign engineering choices entail implicit, indirect and unexpected real-life consequences. Fairness of such systems -- pertaining both to individuals and groups -- is one relevant consideration in this space; it arises when data capture protected characteristics upon which people may be discriminated. To date, this notion has predominantly been studied for a fixed model, often under different classification thresholds, striving to identify and eradicate undesirable, discriminative and possibly unlawful aspects of its operation. Here, we backtrack on this fixed model assumption to propose and explore a novel definition of cross-model fairness where individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally-well performing models, i.e., in view of utility-based model multiplicity. Since a person may be classified differently across models that are otherwise considered equivalent, this individual could argue for a predictor granting them the most favourable outcome, employing which may have adverse effects on others. We introduce this scenario with a two-dimensional example and linear classification; then, we present a comprehensive empirical study based on real-life predictive models and data sets that are popular with the algorithmic fairness community; finally, we investigate analytical properties of cross-model fairness and its ramifications in a broader context. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in the real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone as doing so is likely to degrade predictive performance.

Counterfactual explanations are the de facto standard when tasked with interpreting decisions of (opaque) predictive models. Their generation is often subject to algorithmic and domain-specific constraints -- such as density-based feasibility and attribute (im)mutability or directionality of change -- that aim to maximise their real-life utility. In addition to desiderata with respect to the counterfactual instance itself, existence of a viable path connecting it with the factual data point, known as algorithmic recourse, has become an important technical consideration. While both of these requirements ensure that the steps of the journey as well as its destination are admissible, current literature neglects the multiplicity of such counterfactual paths. To address this shortcoming we introduce the novel concept of explanatory multiverse that encompasses all the possible counterfactual journeys; we then show how to navigate, reason about and compare the geometry of these trajectories -- their affinity, branching, divergence and possible future convergence -- with two methods: vector spaces and graphs. Implementing this (interactive) explanatory process grants explainees agency by allowing them to select counterfactuals based on the properties of the journey leading to them in addition to their absolute differences.

Ante-hoc interpretability has become the holy grail of explainable artificial intelligence for high-stakes domains such as healthcare; however, this notion is elusive, lacks a widely-accepted definition and depends on the operational context. It can refer to predictive models whose structure adheres to domain-specific constraints, or ones that are inherently transparent. The latter conceptualisation assumes observers who judge this quality, whereas the former presupposes them to have technical and domain expertise (thus alienating other groups of explainees). Additionally, the distinction between ante-hoc interpretability and the less desirable post-hoc explainability, which refers to methods that construct a separate explanatory model, is vague given that transparent predictive models may still require (post-)processing to yield suitable explanatory insights. Ante-hoc interpretability is thus an overloaded concept that comprises a range of implicit properties, which we unpack in this paper to better understand what is needed for its safe adoption across high-stakes domains. To this end, we outline modelling and explaining desiderata that allow us to navigate its distinct realisations in view of the envisaged application and audience.

With the introduction of machine learning in high-stakes decision making, ensuring algorithmic fairness has become an increasingly important problem to solve. In response to this, many mathematical definitions of fairness have been proposed, and a variety of optimisation techniques have been developed, all designed to maximise a defined notion of fairness. However, fair solutions are reliant on the quality of the training data, and can be highly sensitive to noise. Recent studies have shown that robustness (the ability for a model to perform well on unseen data) plays a significant role in the type of strategy that should be used when approaching a new problem and, hence, measuring the robustness of these strategies has become a fundamental problem. In this work, we therefore propose a new criterion to measure the robustness of various fairness optimisation strategies - the robustness ratio. We conduct multiple extensive experiments on five bench mark fairness data sets using three of the most popular fairness strategies with respect to four of the most popular definitions of fairness. Our experiments empirically show that fairness methods that rely on threshold optimisation are very sensitive to noise in all the evaluated data sets, despite mostly outperforming other methods. This is in contrast to the other two methods, which are less fair for low noise scenarios but fairer for high noise ones. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to quantitatively evaluate the robustness of fairness optimisation strategies. This can potentially can serve as a guideline in choosing the most suitable fairness strategy for various data sets.

Over the past decade explainable artificial intelligence has evolved from a predominantly technical discipline into a field that is deeply intertwined with social sciences. Insights such as human preference for contrastive -- more precisely, counterfactual -- explanations have played a major role in this transition, inspiring and guiding the research in computer science. Other observations, while equally important, have received much less attention. The desire of human explainees to communicate with artificial intelligence explainers through a dialogue-like interaction has been mostly neglected by the community. This poses many challenges for the effectiveness and widespread adoption of such technologies as delivering a single explanation optimised according to some predefined objectives may fail to engender understanding in its recipients and satisfy their unique needs given the diversity of human knowledge and intention. Using insights elaborated by Niklas Luhmann and, more recently, Elena Esposito we apply social systems theory to highlight challenges in explainable artificial intelligence and offer a path forward, striving to reinvigorate the technical research in this direction. This paper aims to demonstrate the potential of systems theoretical approaches to communication in understanding problems and limitations of explainable artificial intelligence.

Group fairness is achieved by equalising prediction distributions between protected sub-populations; individual fairness requires treating similar individuals alike. These two objectives, however, are incompatible when a scoring model is calibrated through discontinuous probability functions, where individuals can be randomly assigned an outcome determined by a fixed probability. This procedure may provide two similar individuals from the same protected group with classification odds that are disparately different -- a clear violation of individual fairness. Assigning unique odds to each protected sub-population may also prevent members of one sub-population from ever receiving equal chances of a positive outcome to another, which we argue is another type of unfairness called individual odds. We reconcile all this by constructing continuous probability functions between group thresholds that are constrained by their Lipschitz constant. Our solution preserves the model's predictive power, individual fairness and robustness while ensuring group fairness.