Explanations such as these that employ "even if..." reasoning,

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is a learning paradigm in which the agent learns from its environment through trial and error. Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithms represent the agent's policies using neural networks, making their decisions difficult to interpret. Explaining the behaviour of DRL agents is necessary to advance user trust, increase engagement, and facilitate integration with real-life tasks. Semifactual explanations aim to explain an outcome by providing "even if" scenarios, such as "even if the car were moving twice as slowly, it would still have to swerve to avoid crashing". Semifactuals help users understand the effects of different factors on the outcome and support the optimisation of resources. While extensively studied in psychology and even utilised in supervised learning, semifactuals have not been used to explain the decisions of RL systems. In this work, we develop a first approach to generating semifactual explanations for RL agents. We start by defining five properties of desirable semifactual explanations in RL and then introducing SGRL-Rewind and SGRL-Advance, the first algorithms for generating semifactual explanations in RL. We evaluate the algorithms in two standard RL environments and find that they generate semifactuals that are easier to reach, represent the agent's policy better, and are more diverse compared to baselines. Lastly, we conduct and analyse a user study to assess the participant's perception of semifactual explanations of the agent's actions.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a model by generating alternative hypothetical instances. While there has been important work on counterfactual and semifactual explanations for Machine Learning models, less attention has been devoted to these kinds of problems in argumentation. In this paper, we explore counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Framework. We investigate the computational complexity of counterfactual- and semifactual-based reasoning problems, showing that they are generally harder than classical argumentation problems such as credulous and skeptical acceptance. Finally, we show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provide a computational strategy through ASP solvers.

EXplainable AI has received significant attention in recent years. Machine learning models often operate as black boxes, lacking explainability and transparency while supporting decision-making processes. Local post-hoc explainability queries attempt to answer why individual inputs are classified in a certain way by a given model. While there has been important work on counterfactual explanations, less attention has been devoted to semifactual ones. In this paper, we focus on local post-hoc explainability queries within the semifactual `even-if' thinking and their computational complexity among different classes of models, and show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. After this, we introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences, both in the case of semifactuals and counterfactuals, enhancing interpretability and user-centricity. Finally, we explore the complexity of several interpretability problems in the proposed preference-based framework and provide algorithms for polynomial cases.

When users receive either a positive or negative outcome from an automated system, Explainable AI (XAI) has almost exclusively focused on how to mutate negative outcomes into positive ones by crossing a decision boundary using counterfactuals (e.g., \textit{"If you earn 2k more, we will accept your loan application"}). Here, we instead focus on \textit{positive} outcomes, and take the novel step of using XAI to optimise them (e.g., \textit{"Even if you wish to half your down-payment, we will still accept your loan application"}). Explanations such as these that employ "even if..." reasoning, and do not cross a decision boundary, are known as semifactuals. To instantiate semifactuals in this context, we introduce the concept of \textit{Gain} (i.e., how much a user stands to benefit from the explanation), and consider the first causal formalisation of semifactuals. Tests on benchmark datasets show our algorithms are better at maximising gain compared to prior work, and that causality is important in the process. Most importantly however, a user study supports our main hypothesis by showing people find semifactual explanations more useful than counterfactuals when they receive the positive outcome of a loan acceptance.

Due to the unequivocal need for understanding the decision processes of deep learning networks, both modal-dependent and model-agnostic techniques have become very popular. Although both of these ideas provide transparency for automated decision making, most methodologies focus on either using the modal-gradients (model-dependent) or ignoring the model internal states and reasoning with a model's behavior/outcome (model-agnostic) to instances. In this work, we propose a unified explanation approach that given an instance combines both model-dependent and agnostic explanations to produce an explanation set. The generated explanations are not only consistent in the neighborhood of a sample but can highlight causal relationships between image content and the outcome. We use Wireless Capsule Endoscopy (WCE) domain to illustrate the effectiveness of our explanations. The saliency maps generated by our approach are comparable or better on the softmax information score.