In this paper we propose a novel method that provides contrastive explanations justifying the classification of an input by a black box classifier such as a deep neural network. Given an input we find what should be minimally and sufficiently present (viz.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in everyday life and are entering higher-stakes applications ranging from summarizing meeting transcripts to answering doctors' questions. As was the case with earlier predictive models, it is crucial that we develop tools for explaining the output of LLMs, be it a summary, list, response to a question, etc. With these needs in mind, we introduce In-Context Explainability 360 (ICX360), an open-source Python toolkit for explaining LLMs with a focus on the user-provided context (or prompts in general) that are fed to the LLMs. ICX360 contains implementations for three recent tools that explain LLMs using both black-box and white-box methods (via perturbations and gradients respectively).

We introduce the notion of contrastive ABox explanations to answer questions of the type "Why is a an instance of C, but b is not?". While there are various approaches for explaining positive entailments (why is C(a) entailed by the knowledge base) as well as missing entailments (why is C(b) not entailed) in isolation, contrastive explanations consider both at the same time, which allows them to focus on the relevant commonalities and differences between a and b. We develop an appropriate notion of contrastive explanations for the special case of ABox reasoning with description logic ontologies, and analyze the computational complexity for different variants under different optimality criteria, considering lightweight as well as more expressive description logics. We implemented a first method for computing one variant of contrastive explanations, and evaluated it on generated problems for realistic knowledge bases.

This paper presents a comprehensive theoretical investigation into the parameterized complexity of explanation problems in various machine learning (ML) models. Contrary to the prevalent black-box perception, our study focuses on models with transparent internal mechanisms. We address two principal types of explanation problems: abductive and contrastive, both in their local and global variants. Our analysis encompasses diverse ML models, including Decision Trees, Decision Sets, Decision Lists, Boolean Circuits, and ensembles thereof, each offering unique explanatory challenges. This research fills a significant gap in explainable AI (XAI) by providing a foundational understanding of the complexities of generating explanations for these models. This work provides insights vital for further research in the domain of XAI, contributing to the broader discourse on the necessity of transparency and accountability in AI systems.

In these methods, for an input, an explanation is in the form of a contrast point differing in very few features from the original input and lying in a different class.

Contrastive explanations, which indicate why an AI system produced one output (the target) instead of another (the foil), are widely regarded in explainable AI as more informative and interpretable than standard explanations. However, obtaining such explanations for speech-to-text (S2T) generative models remains an open challenge. Drawing from feature attribution techniques, we propose the first method to obtain contrastive explanations in S2T by analyzing how parts of the input spectrogram influence the choice between alternative outputs. Through a case study on gender assignment in speech translation, we show that our method accurately identifies the audio features that drive the selection of one gender over another. By extending the scope of contrastive explanations to S2T, our work provides a foundation for better understanding S2T models.

Existing explanation methods are often limited to explaining predictions of a pre-specified class, which answers the question "why is the input classified into this class?" However, such explanations with respect to a single class are inherently insufficient because they do not capture features with class-discriminative power. That is, features that are important for predicting one class may also be important for other classes.

Following the recent push for trustworthy AI, there has been an increasing interest in developing contrastive explanation techniques for optimisation, especially concerning the solution of specific decision-making processes formalised as MILPs. Along these lines, we propose X-MILP, a domain-agnostic approach for building contrastive explanations for MILPs based on constraint reasoning techniques. First, we show how to encode the queries a user makes about the solution of an MILP problem as additional constraints. Then, we determine the reasons that constitute the answer to the user's query by computing the Irreducible Infeasible Subsystem (IIS) of the newly obtained set of constraints. Finally, we represent our explanation as a "graph of reasons" constructed from the IIS, which helps the user understand the structure among the reasons that answer their query. We test our method on instances of well-known optimisation problems to evaluate the empirical hardness of computing explanations.

"Why Not Other Classes?": Towards Class-Contrastive Back-Propagation Explanations (Wang & Wang, 2022) provides a method for contrastively explaining why a certain class in a neural network image classifier is chosen above others. This method consists of using back-propagation-based explanation methods from after the softmax layer rather than before. Our work consists of reproducing the work in the original paper. We also provide extensions to the paper by evaluating the method on XGradCAM, FullGrad, and Vision Transformers to evaluate its generalization capabilities. The reproductions show similar results as the original paper, with the only difference being the visualization of heatmaps which could not be reproduced to look similar. The generalization seems to be generally good, with implementations working for Vision Transformers and alternative back-propagation methods. We also show that the original paper suffers from issues such as a lack of detail in the method and an erroneous equation which makes reproducibility difficult. To remedy this we provide an open-source repository containing all code used for this project.