An important step towards explaining deep image classifiers lies in the identification of image regions that contribute to individual class scores in the model's output. However, doing this accurately is a difficult task due to the black-box nature of such networks. Most existing approaches find such attributions either using activations and gradients or by repeatedly perturbing the input. We instead address this challenge by training a second deep network, the Explainer, to predict attributions for a pre-trained black-box classifier, the Explanandum. These attributions are provided in the form of masks that only show the classifier-relevant parts of an image, masking out the rest. Our approach produces sharper and more boundaryprecise masks when compared to the saliency maps generated by other methods. Moreover, unlike most existing approaches, ours is capable of directly generating very distinct class-specific masks in a single forward pass. This makes the proposed method very efficient during inference. We show that our attributions are superior to established methods both visually and quantitatively with respect to the PASCAL VOC-2007 and Microsoft COCO-2014 datasets.

Autonomous business processes (ABPs), i.e., self-executing workflows leveraging AI/ML, have the potential to improve operational efficiency, reduce errors, lower costs, improve response times, and free human workers for more strategic and creative work. However, ABPs may raise specific concerns including decreased stakeholder trust, difficulties in debugging, hindered accountability, risk of bias, and issues with regulatory compliance. We argue for eXplainable ABPs (XABPs) to address these concerns by enabling systems to articulate their rationale. The paper outlines a systematic approach to XABPs, characterizing their forms, structuring explainability, and identifying key BPM research challenges towards XABPs.

Why do we give the explanations we do? Recent work has suggested that we should think of explanation as a kind of cooperative social interaction, between a why-question-asker and an explainer. Here, we apply this perspective to consider the role that emotion plays in this social interaction. We develop a computational framework for modeling explainers who consider the emotional impact an explanation might have on a listener. We test our framework by using it to model human intuitions about how a doctor might explain to a patient why they have a disease, taking into account the patient's propensity for regret. Our model predicts human intuitions well, better than emotion-agnostic ablations, suggesting that people do indeed reason about emotion when giving explanations.

The ability to generate explanations that are understood by explainees is the quintessence of explainable artificial intelligence. Since understanding depends on the explainee's background and needs, recent research focused on co-constructive explanation dialogues, where an explainer continuously monitors the explainee's understanding and adapts their explanations dynamically. We investigate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to engage as explainers in co-constructive explanation dialogues. In particular, we present a user study in which explainees interact with an LLM in two settings, one of which involves the LLM being instructed to explain a topic co-constructively. We evaluate the explainees' understanding before and after the dialogue, as well as their perception of the LLMs' co-constructive behavior. Our results suggest that LLMs show some co-constructive behaviors, such as asking verification questions, that foster the explainees' engagement and can improve understanding of a topic. However, their ability to effectively monitor the current understanding and scaffold the explanations accordingly remains limited.

Clear and effective explanations are essential for human understanding and knowledge dissemination. The scope of scientific research aiming to understand the essence of explanations has recently expanded from the social sciences to include the fields of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Important contributions from social sciences include [18, 17, 22, 13, 5, 11] with works that examine critical aspects such as causality (cause-and-effect relationships), contrast (distinctions between differing scenarios), relevance (applicability of explanations), and truth (accuracy and verifiability of explanations). However, machine learning and natural language processing focus more on operational definitions and on the importance of constructing datasets, as seen in studies by [21, 23, 6]. Since explanations for machine learning decisions must be both impactful and human-like [10, 3, 20, 12, 4], a major challenge lies in developing explanations that emphasize proximal aspects -- details that are immediately relevant, direct and related to the user -- over broad algorithmic processes [21].

Deep learning models are powerful image classifiers but their opacity hinders their trustworthiness. Explanation methods for capturing the reasoning process within these classifiers faithfully and in a clear manner are scarce, due to their sheer complexity and size. We provide a solution for this problem by defining a novel method for explaining the outputs of image classifiers with debates between two agents, each arguing for a particular class. We obtain these debates as concrete instances of Free Argumentative eXchanges (FAXs), a novel argumentation-based multi-agent framework allowing agents to internalise opinions by other agents differently than originally stated. We define two metrics (consensus and persuasion rate) to assess the usefulness of FAXs as argumentative explanations for image classifiers. We then conduct a number of empirical experiments showing that FAXs perform well along these metrics as well as being more faithful to the image classifiers than conventional, non-argumentative explanation methods. All our implementations can be found at https://github.com/koriavinash1/FAX.

This study explores the impact of class outliers on the effectiveness of example-based explainability methods for black-box machine learning models. We reformulate existing explainability evaluation metrics, such as correctness and relevance, specifically for example-based methods, and introduce a new metric, distinguishability. Using these metrics, we highlight the shortcomings of current example-based explainability methods, including those who attempt to suppress class outliers. We conduct experiments on two datasets, a text classification dataset and an image classification dataset, and evaluate the performance of four state-of-the-art explainability methods. Our findings underscore the need for robust techniques to tackle the challenges posed by class outliers.

Despite explainable AI (XAI) has recently become a hot topic and several different approaches have been developed, there is still a widespread belief that it lacks a convincing unifying foundation. On the other hand, over the past centuries, the very concept of explanation has been the subject of extensive philosophical analysis in an attempt to address the fundamental question of "why" in the context of scientific law. However, this discussion has rarely been connected with XAI. This paper tries to fill in this gap and aims to explore the concept of explanation in AI through an epistemological lens. By comparing the historical development of both the philosophy of science and AI, an intriguing picture emerges. Specifically, we show that a gradual progression has independently occurred in both domains from logical-deductive to statistical models of explanation, thereby experiencing in both cases a paradigm shift from deterministic to nondeterministic and probabilistic causality. Interestingly, we also notice that similar concepts have independently emerged in both realms such as, for example, the relation between explanation and understanding and the importance of pragmatic factors. Our study aims to be the first step towards understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the notion of explanation in AI, and we hope that our findings will shed some fresh light on the elusive nature of XAI.

Large language models (LLMs) can be used to generate natural language explanations (NLE) that are adapted to different users' situations. However, there is yet to be a quantitative evaluation of the extent of such adaptation. To bridge this gap, we collect a benchmarking dataset, Situation-Based Explanation. This dataset contains 100 explanandums. Each explanandum is paired with explanations targeted at three distinct audience types-such as educators, students, and professionals-enabling us to assess how well the explanations meet the specific informational needs and contexts of these diverse groups e.g. students, teachers, and parents. For each "explanandum paired with an audience" situation, we include a human-written explanation. These allow us to compute scores that quantify how the LLMs adapt the explanations to the situations. On an array of pretrained language models with varying sizes, we examine three categories of prompting methods: rule-based prompting, meta-prompting, and in-context learning prompting. We find that 1) language models can generate prompts that result in explanations more precisely aligned with the target situations, 2) explicitly modeling an "assistant" persona by prompting "You are a helpful assistant..." is not a necessary prompt technique for situated NLE tasks, and 3) the in-context learning prompts only can help LLMs learn the demonstration template but can't improve their inference performance. SBE and our analysis facilitate future research towards generating situated natural language explanations.

In belief revision, agents typically modify their beliefs when they receive some new piece of information that is in conflict with them. The guiding principle behind most belief revision frameworks is that of minimalism, which advocates minimal changes to existing beliefs. However, minimalism may not necessarily capture the nuanced ways in which human agents reevaluate and modify their beliefs. In contrast, the explanatory hypothesis indicates that people are inherently driven to seek explanations for inconsistencies, thereby striving for explanatory coherence rather than minimal changes when revising beliefs. Our contribution in this paper is two-fold. Motivated by the explanatory hypothesis, we first present a novel, yet simple belief revision operator that, given a belief base and an explanation for an explanandum, it revises the belief bases in a manner that preserves the explanandum and is not necessarily minimal. We call this operator explanation-based belief revision. Second, we conduct two human-subject studies to empirically validate our approach and investigate belief revision behavior in real-world scenarios. Our findings support the explanatory hypothesis and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies.