Explanations are crucial for building trustworthy AI systems, but a gap often exists between the explanations provided by models and those needed by users. To address this gap, we introduce MetaExplainer, a neuro-symbolic framework designed to generate user-centered explanations. Our approach employs a three-stage process: first, we decompose user questions into machine-readable formats using state-of-the-art large language models (LLM); second, we delegate the task of generating system recommendations to model explainer methods; and finally, we synthesize natural language explanations that summarize the explainer outputs. Throughout this process, we utilize an Explanation Ontology to guide the language models and explainer methods. By leveraging LLMs and a structured approach to explanation generation, MetaExplainer aims to enhance the interpretability and trustworthiness of AI systems across various applications, providing users with tailored, question-driven explanations that better meet their needs. Comprehensive evaluations of MetaExplainer demonstrate a step towards evaluating and utilizing current state-of-the-art explanation frameworks. Our results show high performance across all stages, with a 59.06% F1-score in question reframing, 70% faithfulness in model explanations, and 67% context-utilization in natural language synthesis. User studies corroborate these findings, highlighting the creativity and comprehensiveness of generated explanations. Tested on the Diabetes (PIMA Indian) tabular dataset, MetaExplainer supports diverse explanation types, including Contrastive, Counterfactual, Rationale, Case-Based, and Data explanations. The framework's versatility and traceability from using ontology to guide LLMs suggest broad applicability beyond the tested scenarios, positioning MetaExplainer as a promising tool for enhancing AI explainability across various domains.

Understanding biases and stereotypes encoded in the weights of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for developing effective mitigation strategies. Biased behaviour is often subtle and non-trivial to isolate, even when deliberately elicited, making systematic analysis and debiasing particularly challenging. To address this, we introduce BiasGym, a simple, cost-effective, and generalizable framework for reliably injecting, analyzing, and mitigating conceptual associations within LLMs. BiasGym consists of two components: BiasInject, which injects specific biases into the model via token-based fine-tuning while keeping the model frozen, and BiasScope, which leverages these injected signals to identify and steer the components responsible for biased behavior. Our method enables consistent bias elicitation for mechanistic analysis, supports targeted debiasing without degrading performance on downstream tasks, and generalizes to biases unseen during token-based fine-tuning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of BiasGym in reducing real-world stereotypes (e.g., people from Italy being `reckless drivers') and in probing fictional associations (e.g., people from a fictional country having `blue skin'), showing its utility for both safety interventions and interpretability research.

Human label variation (HLV) is a valuable source of information that arises when multiple human annotators provide different labels for valid reasons. In Natural Language Inference (NLI) earlier approaches to capturing HLV involve either collecting annotations from many crowd workers to represent human judgment distribution (HJD) or use expert linguists to provide detailed explanations for their chosen labels. While the former method provides denser HJD information, obtaining it is resource-intensive. In contrast, the latter offers richer textual information but it is challenging to scale up to many human judges. Besides, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators (``LLM judges'') but with mixed results, and few works aim to study HJDs. This study proposes to exploit LLMs to approximate HJDs using a small number of expert labels and explanations. Our experiments show that a few explanations significantly improve LLMs' ability to approximate HJDs with and without explicit labels, thereby providing a solution to scale up annotations for HJD. However, fine-tuning smaller soft-label aware models with the LLM-generated model judgment distributions (MJDs) presents partially inconsistent results: while similar in distance, their resulting fine-tuned models and visualized distributions differ substantially. We show the importance of complementing instance-level distance measures with a global-level shape metric and visualization to more effectively evaluate MJDs against human judgment distributions.

In this paper, we address the issue of using logic rules to explain the results from legal case retrieval. The task is critical to legal case retrieval because the users (e.g., lawyers or judges) are highly specialized and require the system to provide logical, faithful, and interpretable explanations before making legal decisions. Recently, research efforts have been made to learn explainable legal case retrieval models. However, these methods usually select rationales (key sentences) from the legal cases as explanations, failing to provide faithful and logically correct explanations. In this paper, we propose Neural-Symbolic enhanced Legal Case Retrieval (NS-LCR), a framework that explicitly conducts reasoning on the matching of legal cases through learning case-level and law-level logic rules. The learned rules are then integrated into the retrieval process in a neuro-symbolic manner. Benefiting from the logic and interpretable nature of the logic rules, NS-LCR is equipped with built-in faithful explainability. We also show that NS-LCR is a model-agnostic framework that can be plugged in for multiple legal retrieval models. To showcase NS-LCR's superiority, we enhance existing benchmarks by adding manually annotated logic rules and introducing a novel explainability metric using Large Language Models (LLMs). Our comprehensive experiments reveal NS-LCR's effectiveness for ranking, alongside its proficiency in delivering reliable explanations for legal case retrieval.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable advances in language generation and understanding but are also prone to exhibiting harmful social biases. While recognition of these behaviors has generated an abundance of bias mitigation techniques, most require modifications to the training data, model parameters, or decoding strategy, which may be infeasible without access to a trainable model. In this work, we leverage the zero-shot capabilities of LLMs to reduce stereotyping in a technique we introduce as zero-shot self-debiasing. With two approaches, self-debiasing via explanation and self-debiasing via reprompting, we show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups while relying only on the LLM itself and a simple prompt, with explanations correctly identifying invalid assumptions and reprompting delivering the greatest reductions in bias. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can cause harm to people. This research examines how individuals react to such harm through the lens of blame. Building upon research suggesting that people blame AI systems, we investigated how several factors influence people's reactive attitudes towards machines, designers, and users. The results of three studies (N = 1,153) indicate differences in how blame is attributed to these actors. Whether AI systems were explainable did not impact blame directed at them, their developers, and their users. Considerations about fairness and harmfulness increased blame towards designers and users but had little to no effect on judgments of AI systems. Instead, what determined people's reactive attitudes towards machines was whether people thought blaming them would be a suitable response to algorithmic harm. We discuss implications, such as how future decisions about including AI systems in the social and moral spheres will shape laypeople's reactions to AI-caused harm.

We argue that robustness of explanations---i.e., that similar inputs should give rise to similar explanations---is a key desideratum for interpretability. We introduce metrics to quantify robustness and demonstrate that current methods do not perform well according to these metrics. Finally, we propose ways that robustness can be enforced on existing interpretability approaches.

Most recent work on interpretability of complex machine learning models has focused on estimating $\textit{a posteriori}$ explanations for previously trained models around specific predictions. $\textit{Self-explaining}$ models where interpretability plays a key role already during learning have received much less attention. We propose three desiderata for explanations in general -- explicitness, faithfulness, and stability -- and show that existing methods do not satisfy them. In response, we design self-explaining models in stages, progressively generalizing linear classifiers to complex yet architecturally explicit models. Faithfulness and stability are enforced via regularization specifically tailored to such models. Experimental results across various benchmark datasets show that our framework offers a promising direction for reconciling model complexity and interpretability.