As service robots become more general-purpose, they will need to adapt to their users' preferences over a large set of all possible tasks that they can perform. This includes preferences regarding which actions the users prefer to delegate to robots as opposed to doing themselves. Existing personalization approaches require task-specific data for each user. To handle diversity across all household tasks and users, and nuances in user preferences across tasks, we propose to learn a task adaptation function independently, which can be used in tandem with any universal robot policy to customize robot behavior. We create Task Adaptation using Abstract Concepts (TAACo) framework. TAACo can learn to predict the user's preferred manner of assistance with any given task, by mediating reasoning through a representation composed of abstract concepts built based on user feedback. TAACo can generalize to an open set of household tasks from small amount of user feedback and explain its inferences through intuitive concepts. We evaluate our model on a dataset we collected of 5 people's preferences, and show that TAACo outperforms GPT-4 by 16% and a rule-based system by 54%, on prediction accuracy, with 40 samples of user feedback.

Predictions made by graph neural networks (GNNs) usually lack interpretability due to their complex computational behavior and the abstract nature of graphs. In an attempt to tackle this, many GNN explanation methods have emerged. Their goal is to explain a model's predictions and thereby obtain trust when GNN models are deployed in decision critical applications. Most GNN explanation methods work in a post-hoc manner and provide explanations in the form of a small subset of important edges and/or nodes. In this paper we demonstrate that these explanations can unfortunately not be trusted, as common GNN explanation methods turn out to be highly susceptible to adversarial perturbations. That is, even small perturbations of the original graph structure that preserve the model's predictions may yield drastically different explanations. This calls into question the trustworthiness and practical utility of post-hoc explanation methods for GNNs. To be able to attack GNN explanation models, we devise a novel attack method dubbed \textit{GXAttack}, the first \textit{optimization-based} adversarial attack method for post-hoc GNN explanations under such settings. Due to the devastating effectiveness of our attack, we call for an adversarial evaluation of future GNN explainers to demonstrate their robustness.

Providing explainable molecule property predictions is critical for many scientific domains, such as drug discovery and material science. Though transformer-based language models have shown great potential in accurate molecular property prediction, they neither provide chemically meaningful explanations nor faithfully reveal the molecular structure-property relationships. In this work, we develop a new framework for explainable molecular property prediction based on language models, dubbed as Lamole, which can provide chemical concepts-aligned explanations. We first leverage a designated molecular representation -- the Group SELFIES -- as it can provide chemically meaningful semantics. Because attention mechanisms in Transformers can inherently capture relationships within the input, we further incorporate the attention weights and gradients together to generate explanations for capturing the functional group interactions. We then carefully craft a marginal loss to explicitly optimize the explanations to be able to align with the chemists' annotations. We bridge the manifold hypothesis with the elaborated marginal loss to prove that the loss can align the explanations with the tangent space of the data manifold, leading to concept-aligned explanations. Experimental results over six mutagenicity datasets and one hepatotoxicity dataset demonstrate Lamole can achieve comparable classification accuracy and boost the explanation accuracy by up to 14.8%, being the state-of-the-art in explainable molecular property prediction.

Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) collects user feedback on visual model explanations to implement a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) based interactive learning scenario. Different user feedback types will have different impacts on user experience and the cost associated with collecting feedback since different feedback types involve different levels of image annotation. Although XIL has been used to improve classification performance in multiple domains, the impact of different user feedback types on model performance and explanation accuracy is not well studied. To guide future XIL work we compare the effectiveness of two different user feedback types in image classification tasks: (1) instructing an algorithm to ignore certain spurious image features, and (2) instructing an algorithm to focus on certain valid image features. We use explanations from a Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (GradCAM) based XIL model to support both feedback types. We show that identifying and annotating spurious image features that a model finds salient results in superior classification and explanation accuracy than user feedback that tells a model to focus on valid image features.

Local explanations of learning-to-rank (LTR) models are thought to extract the most important features that contribute to the ranking predicted by the LTR model for a single data point. Evaluating the accuracy of such explanations is challenging since the ground truth feature importance scores are not available for most modern LTR models. In this work, we propose a systematic evaluation technique for explanations of LTR models. Instead of using black-box models, such as neural networks, we propose to focus on tree-based LTR models, from which we can extract the ground truth feature importance scores using decision paths. Once extracted, we can directly compare the ground truth feature importance scores to the feature importance scores generated with explanation techniques. We compare two recently proposed explanation techniques for LTR models when using decision trees and gradient boosting models on the MQ2008 dataset. We show that the explanation accuracy in these techniques can largely vary depending on the explained model and even which data point is explained.

Explaining the foundations for predictions obtained from graph neural networks (GNNs) is critical for credible use of GNN models for real-world problems. Owing to the rapid growth of GNN applications, recent progress in explaining predictions from GNNs, such as sensitivity analysis, perturbation methods, and attribution methods, showed great opportunities and possibilities for explaining GNN predictions. In this study, we propose a method to improve the explanation quality of node classification tasks that can be applied in a post hoc manner through aggregation of auxiliary explanations from important neighboring nodes, named SEEN. Applying SEEN does not require modification of a graph and can be used with diverse explainability techniques due to its independent mechanism. Experiments on matching motif-participating nodes from a given graph show great improvement in explanation accuracy of up to 12.71% and demonstrate the correlation between the auxiliary explanations and the enhanced explanation accuracy through leveraging their contributions. SEEN provides a simple but effective method to enhance the explanation quality of GNN model outputs, and this method is applicable in combination with most explainability techniques.