Automated reasoning is a key technology in the young but rapidly growing field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Explanability helps build trust in artificial intelligence systems beyond their mere predictive accuracy and robustness. In this paper, we propose a cycle of scientific discovery that combines machine learning with automated reasoning for the generation and the selection of explanations. We present a taxonomy of explanation selection problems that draws on insights from sociology and cognitive science. These selection criteria subsume existing notions and extend them with new properties.

As machine learning becomes increasingly integral to autonomous decision-making processes involving human interaction, the necessity of comprehending the model's outputs through conversational means increases. Most recently, foundation models are being explored for their potential as post hoc explainers, providing a pathway to elucidate the decision-making mechanisms of predictive models. In this work, we introduce traceable question-answering, leveraging an external knowledge repository to inform the responses of Large Language Models (LLMs) to user queries within a scene understanding task. This knowledge repository comprises contextual details regarding the model's output, containing high-level features, feature importance, and alternative probabilities. We employ subtractive counterfactual reasoning to compute feature importance, a method that entails analysing output variations resulting from decomposing semantic features. Furthermore, to maintain a seamless conversational flow, we integrate four key characteristics - social, causal, selective, and contrastive - drawn from social science research on human explanations into a single-shot prompt, guiding the response generation process. Our evaluation demonstrates that explanations generated by the LLMs encompassed these elements, indicating its potential to bridge the gap between complex model outputs and natural language expressions.

Integer Linear Programming (ILP) has been proposed as a formalism for encoding precise structural and semantic constraints for Natural Language Inference (NLI). However, traditional ILP frameworks are non-differentiable, posing critical challenges for the integration of continuous language representations based on deep learning. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach, named Diff-Comb Explainer, a neuro-symbolic architecture for explanation-based NLI based on Differentiable BlackBox Combinatorial Solvers (DBCS). Differently from existing neuro-symbolic solvers, Diff-Comb Explainer does not necessitate a continuous relaxation of the semantic constraints, enabling a direct, more precise, and efficient incorporation of neural representations into the ILP formulation. Our experiments demonstrate that Diff-Comb Explainer achieves superior performance when compared to conventional ILP solvers, neuro-symbolic black-box solvers, and Transformer-based encoders. Moreover, a deeper analysis reveals that Diff-Comb Explainer can significantly improve the precision, consistency, and faithfulness of the constructed explanations, opening new opportunities for research on neuro-symbolic architectures for explainable and transparent NLI in complex domains.

Recent work has shown how to prompt large language models with explanations to obtain strong performance on textual reasoning tasks, i.e., the chain-of-thought paradigm. However, subtly different explanations can yield widely varying downstream task accuracy. Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion. We first generate sets of candidate explanations for each example in the prompt using a leave-one-out scheme, then find an effective combination of these explanations with a two-stage framework. We first evaluate explanations for each in-context example in isolation according to two proxy metrics, log likelihood and accuracy on new examples. Then, we search over combinations of explanations to find one that yields high performance against a silver-labeled development set. Across four textual reasoning tasks spanning question answering, mathematical reasoning, and natural language inference, results show that our proxy metrics correlate with ground truth accuracy and our overall method can effectively improve prompts over crowdworker annotations and naive search strategies

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a `good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.