If-then rules are widely used to explain machine learning models; e.g., "if employed = no, then loan application = rejected." We present the first proposal to apply rules to explain the emerging class of large language models (LLMs) with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Since RAG enables LLM systems to incorporate retrieved information sources at inference time, rules linking the presence or absence of sources can explain output provenance; e.g., "if a Times Higher Education ranking article is retrieved, then the LLM ranks Oxford first." To generate such rules, a brute force approach would probe the LLM with all source combinations and check if the presence or absence of any sources leads to the same output. We propose optimizations to speed up rule generation, inspired by Apriori-like pruning from frequent itemset mining but redefined within the scope of our novel problem. We conclude with qualitative and quantitative experiments demonstrating our solutions' value and efficiency.

In high-stakes sectors such as network security, IoT security, accurately distinguishing between normal and anomalous data is critical due to the significant implications for operational success and safety in decision-making. The complexity is exacerbated by the presence of unlabeled data and the opaque nature of black-box anomaly detection models, which obscure the rationale behind their predictions. In this paper, we present a novel method to interpret the decision-making processes of these models, which are essential for detecting malicious activities without labeled attack data. We put forward the Segmentation Clustering Decision Tree (SCD-Tree), designed to dissect and understand the structure of normal data distributions. To further refine these segments, the Gaussian Boundary Delineation (GBD) algorithm is employed to define boundaries within each segmented distribution, effectively delineating normal from anomalous data points.

Rule-based models offer a human-understandable representation, i.e. they are interpretable. For this reason, they are used to explain the decisions of non-interpretable complex models, referred to as black box models. The generation of such explanations involves the approximation of a black box model by a rule-based model. To date, however, it has not been investigated whether the rule-based model makes decisions in the same way as the black box model it approximates. Decision making in the same way is understood in this work as the consistency of decisions and the consistency of the most important attributes used for decision making. This study proposes a novel approach ensuring that the rule-based surrogate model mimics the performance of the black box model. The proposed solution performs an explanation fusion involving rule generation and taking into account the feature importance determined by the selected XAI methods for the black box model being explained. The result of the method can be both global and local rule-based explanations. The quality of the proposed solution was verified by extensive analysis on 30 tabular benchmark datasets representing classification problems. Evaluation included comparison with the reference method and an illustrative case study. In addition, the paper discusses the possible pathways for the application of the rule-based approach in XAI and how rule-based explanations, including the proposed method, meet the user perspective and requirements for both content and presentation. The software created and a detailed report containing the full experimental results are available on the GitHub repository (https://github.com/ruleminer/FI-rules4XAI ).

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is one of the most intensively developed are of AI in recent years. It is also one of the most fragmented one with multiple methods that focus on different aspects of explanations. This makes difficult to obtain the full spectrum of explanation at once in a compact and consistent way. To address this issue, we present Local Universal Explainer (LUX) that is a rule-based explainer which can generate factual, counterfactual and visual explanations. It is based on a modified version of decision tree algorithms that allows for oblique splits and integration with feature importance XAI methods such as SHAP or LIME. It does not use data generation in opposite to other algorithms, but is focused on selecting local concepts in a form of high-density clusters of real data that have the highest impact on forming the decision boundary of the explained model. We tested our method on real and synthetic datasets and compared it with state-of-the-art rule-based explainers such as LORE, EXPLAN and Anchor. Our method outperforms currently existing approaches in terms of simplicity, global fidelity and representativeness.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods have mostly been built to investigate and shed light on single machine learning models and are not designed to capture and explain differences between multiple models effectively. This paper addresses the challenge of understanding and explaining differences between machine learning models, which is crucial for model selection, monitoring and lifecycle management in real-world applications. We propose DeltaXplainer, a model-agnostic method for generating rule-based explanations describing the differences between two binary classifiers. To assess the effectiveness of DeltaXplainer, we conduct experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets, covering various model comparison scenarios involving different types of concept drift.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are key tools in many AI-related tasks such as reasoning or question answering. This has, in turn, propelled research in link prediction in KGs, the task of predicting missing relationships from the available knowledge. Solutions based on KG embeddings have shown promising results in this matter. On the downside, these approaches are usually unable to explain their predictions. While some works have proposed to compute post-hoc rule explanations for embedding-based link predictors, these efforts have mostly resorted to rules with unbounded atoms, e.g., bornIn(x,y) => residence(x,y), learned on a global scope, i.e., the entire KG. None of these works has considered the impact of rules with bounded atoms such as nationality(x,England) => speaks(x, English), or the impact of learning from regions of the KG, i.e., local scopes. We therefore study the effects of these factors on the quality of rule-based explanations for embedding-based link predictors. Our results suggest that more specific rules and local scopes can improve the accuracy of the explanations. Moreover, these rules can provide further insights about the inner-workings of KG embeddings for link prediction.

Rule-based explanations provide simple reasons explaining the behavior of machine learning classifiers at given points in the feature space. Several recent methods (Anchors, LORE, etc.) purport to generate rule-based explanations for arbitrary or black-box classifiers. But what makes these methods work in general? We introduce a topological framework for rule-based explanation methods and provide a characterization of explainability in terms of the definability of a classifier relative to an explanation scheme. We employ this framework to consider various explanation schemes and argue that the preferred scheme depends on how much the user knows about the domain and the probability measure over the feature space.

Sophisticated machine models are increasingly used for high-stakes decisions in everyday life. There is an urgent need to develop effective explanation techniques for such automated decisions. Rule-Based Explanations have been proposed for high-stake decisions like loan applications, because they increase the users' trust in the decision. However, rule-based explanations are very inefficient to compute, and existing systems sacrifice their quality in order to achieve reasonable performance. We propose a novel approach to compute rule-based explanations, by using a different type of explanation, Counterfactual Explanations, for which several efficient systems have already been developed. We prove a Duality Theorem, showing that rule-based and counterfactual-based explanations are dual to each other, then use this observation to develop an efficient algorithm for computing rule-based explanations, which uses the counterfactual-based explanation as an oracle. We conduct extensive experiments showing that our system computes rule-based explanations of higher quality, and with the same or better performance, than two previous systems, MinSetCover and Anchor.

Software Quality Assurance (SQA) planning aims to define proactive plans, such as defining maximum file size, to prevent the occurrence of software defects in future releases. To aid this, defect prediction models have been proposed to generate insights as the most important factors that are associated with software quality. Such insights that are derived from traditional defect models are far from actionable-i.e., practitioners still do not know what they should do or avoid to decrease the risk of having defects, and what is the risk threshold for each metric. A lack of actionable guidance and risk threshold can lead to inefficient and ineffective SQA planning processes. In this paper, we investigate the practitioners' perceptions of current SQA planning activities, current challenges of such SQA planning activities, and propose four types of guidance to support SQA planning. We then propose and evaluate our AI-Driven SQAPlanner approach, a novel approach for generating four types of guidance and their associated risk thresholds in the form of rule-based explanations for the predictions of defect prediction models. Finally, we develop and evaluate an information visualization for our SQAPlanner approach. Through the use of qualitative survey and empirical evaluation, our results lead us to conclude that SQAPlanner is needed, effective, stable, and practically applicable. We also find that 80% of our survey respondents perceived that our visualization is more actionable. Thus, our SQAPlanner paves a way for novel research in actionable software analytics-i.e., generating actionable guidance on what should practitioners do and not do to decrease the risk of having defects to support SQA planning.

This has led to the development of a plethora of domain-dependent and context-specific methods for dealing with the interpretation of machine learning (ML) models and the formation of explanations for humans. Unfortunately, this trend is far from being over, with an abundance of knowledge in the field which is scattered and needs organisation. The goal of this article is to systematically review research works in the field of XAI and to try to define some boundaries in the field. From several hundreds of research articles focused on the concept of explainability, about 350 have been considered for review by using the following search methodology. In a first phase, Google Scholar was queried to find papers related to "explainable artificial intelligence", "explainable machine learning" and "interpretable machine learning". Subsequently, the bibliographic section of these articles was thoroughly examined to retrieve further relevant scientific studies. The first noticeable thing, as shown in figure 2 (a), is the distribution of the publication dates of selected research articles: sporadic in the 70s and 80s, receiving preliminary attention in the 90s, showing raising interest in 2000 and becoming a recognised body of knowledge after 2010. The first research concerned the development of an explanation-based system and its integration in a computer program designed to help doctors make diagnoses [3]. Some of the more recent papers focus on work devoted to the clustering of methods for explainability, motivating the need for organising the XAI literature [4, 5, 6].