Publications
Results
- Showing results for:
- Reset all filters
Search results
-
Conference paperCyras K, Rago A, Emanuele A, et al., 2021,
Argumentative XAI: a survey
, The 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21), Publisher: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Pages: 4392-4399Explainable AI (XAI) has been investigated for decades and, together with AI itself, has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years. Among various approaches to XAI, argumentative models have been advocated in both the AI and social science literature, as their dialectical nature appears to match some basic desirable features of the explanation activity. In this survey we overview XAI approaches built using methods from the field of computational argumentation, leveraging its wide array of reasoning abstractions and explanation delivery methods. We overview the literature focusing on different types of explanation (intrinsic and post-hoc), different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use. We also lay out a roadmap for future work.
-
ReportPaulino-Passos G, Toni F, 2021,
Monotonicity and Noise-Tolerance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation (with Appendix)
Recently, abstract argumentation-based models of case-based reasoning($AA{\text -} CBR$ in short) have been proposed, originally inspired by thelegal domain, but also applicable as classifiers in different scenarios.However, the formal properties of $AA{\text -} CBR$ as a reasoning systemremain largely unexplored. In this paper, we focus on analysing thenon-monotonicity properties of a regular version of $AA{\text -} CBR$ (that wecall $AA{\text -} CBR_{\succeq}$). Specifically, we prove that $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$ is not cautiously monotonic, a property frequently considereddesirable in the literature. We then define a variation of $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$ which is cautiously monotonic. Further, we prove that suchvariation is equivalent to using $AA{\text -} CBR_{\succeq}$ with a restrictedcasebase consisting of all "surprising" and "sufficient" cases in the originalcasebase. As a by-product, we prove that this variation of $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$ is cumulative, rationally monotonic, and empowers a principledtreatment of noise in "incoherent" casebases. Finally, we illustrate $AA{\text-} CBR$ and cautious monotonicity questions on a case study on the U.S. TradeSecrets domain, a legal casebase.
-
Journal articleRago A, Cocarascu O, Bechlivanidis C, et al., 2021,
Argumentative explanations for interactive recommendations
, Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 296, Pages: 1-22, ISSN: 0004-3702A significant challenge for recommender systems (RSs), and in fact for AI systems in general, is the systematic definition of explanations for outputs in such a way that both the explanations and the systems themselves are able to adapt to their human users' needs. In this paper we propose an RS hosting a vast repertoire of explanations, which are customisable to users in their content and format, and thus able to adapt to users' explanatory requirements, while being reasonably effective (proven empirically). Our RS is built on a graphical chassis, allowing the extraction of argumentation scaffolding, from which diverse and varied argumentative explanations for recommendations can be obtained. These recommendations are interactive because they can be questioned by users and they support adaptive feedback mechanisms designed to allow the RS to self-improve (proven theoretically). Finally, we undertake user studies in which we vary the characteristics of the argumentative explanations, showing users' general preferences for more information, but also that their tastes are diverse, thus highlighting the need for our adaptable RS.
-
Journal articleLertvittayakumjorn P, Toni F, 2021,
Explanation-based human debugging of nlp models: a survey
, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol: 9, Pages: 1508-1528, ISSN: 2307-387XDebugging a machine learning model is hard since the bug usually involves the training data and the learning process. This becomes even harder for an opaque deep learning model if we have no clue about how the model actually works. In this survey, we review papers that exploit explanations to enable humans to give feedback and debug NLP models. We call this problem explanation-based human debugging (EBHD). In particular, we categorize and discuss existing work along three dimensions of EBHD (the bug context, the workflow, and the experimental setting), compile findings on how EBHD components affect the feedback providers, and highlight open problems that could be future research directions.
-
Conference paperPaulino-Passos G, Toni F, 2021,
Monotonicity and Noise-Tolerance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation
, Pages: 508-518 -
Conference paperKotonya N, Toni F, 2020,
Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey
, Barcelona. Spain, 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2020), Publisher: International Committee on Computational Linguistics, Pages: 5430-5443A number of exciting advances have been made in automated fact-checkingthanks to increasingly larger datasets and more powerful systems, leading toimprovements in the complexity of claims which can be accurately fact-checked.However, despite these advances, there are still desirable functionalitiesmissing from the fact-checking pipeline. In this survey, we focus on theexplanation functionality -- that is fact-checking systems providing reasonsfor their predictions. We summarize existing methods for explaining thepredictions of fact-checking systems and we explore trends in this topic.Further, we consider what makes for good explanations in this specific domainthrough a comparative analysis of existing fact-checking explanations againstsome desirable properties. Finally, we propose further research directions forgenerating fact-checking explanations, and describe how these may lead toimprovements in the research area.v
-
Conference paperKotonya N, Toni F, 2020,
Explainable Automated Fact-Checking for Public Health Claims
, 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP(1) 2020), Publisher: ACL, Pages: 7740-7754Fact-checking is the task of verifying the veracity of claims by assessing their assertions against credible evidence. The vast major-ity of fact-checking studies focus exclusively on political claims. Very little research explores fact-checking for other topics, specifically subject matters for which expertise is required. We present the first study of explainable fact-checking for claims which require specific expertise. For our case study we choose the setting of public health. To support this case study we construct a new datasetPUBHEALTHof 11.8K claims accompanied by journalist crafted, gold standard explanations(i.e., judgments) to support the fact-check la-bels for claims1. We explore two tasks: veracity prediction and explanation generation. We also define and evaluate, with humans and computationally, three coherence properties of explanation quality. Our results indicate that,by training on in-domain data, gains can be made in explainable, automated fact-checking for claims which require specific expertise.
-
Conference paperCocarascu O, Stylianou A, Cyras K, et al., 2020,
Data-empowered argumentation for dialectically explainable predictions
, 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2020), Publisher: IOS Press, Pages: 2449-2456Today’s AI landscape is permeated by plentiful data anddominated by powerful data-centric methods with the potential toimpact a wide range of human sectors. Yet, in some settings this po-tential is hindered by these data-centric AI methods being mostlyopaque. Considerable efforts are currently being devoted to defin-ing methods for explaining black-box techniques in some settings,while the use of transparent methods is being advocated in others,especially when high-stake decisions are involved, as in healthcareand the practice of law. In this paper we advocate a novel transpar-ent paradigm of Data-Empowered Argumentation (DEAr in short)for dialectically explainable predictions. DEAr relies upon the ex-traction of argumentation debates from data, so that the dialecticaloutcomes of these debates amount to predictions (e.g. classifications)that can be explained dialectically. The argumentation debates con-sist of (data) arguments which may not be linguistic in general butmay nonetheless be deemed to be ‘arguments’ in that they are dialec-tically related, for instance by disagreeing on data labels. We illus-trate and experiment with the DEAr paradigm in three settings, mak-ing use, respectively, of categorical data, (annotated) images and text.We show empirically that DEAr is competitive with another transpar-ent model, namely decision trees (DTs), while also providing natu-rally dialectical explanations.
-
Journal articleCalvo RA, Peters D, Cave S, 2020,
Advancing impact assessment for intelligent systems
, Nature Machine Intelligence, Vol: 2, Pages: 89-91, ISSN: 2522-5839 -
Conference paperLertvittayakumjorn P, Toni F, 2019,
Human-grounded evaluations of explanation methods for text classification
, 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Publisher: ACL Anthology, Pages: 5195-5205Due to the black-box nature of deep learning models, methods for explaining the models’ results are crucial to gain trust from humans and support collaboration between AIsand humans. In this paper, we consider several model-agnostic and model-specific explanation methods for CNNs for text classification and conduct three human-grounded evaluations, focusing on different purposes of explanations: (1) revealing model behavior, (2)justifying model predictions, and (3) helping humans investigate uncertain predictions.The results highlight dissimilar qualities of thevarious explanation methods we consider andshow the degree to which these methods couldserve for each purpose.
-
Conference paperČyras K, Letsios D, Misener R, et al., 2019,
Argumentation for explainable scheduling
, Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19), Publisher: AAAI, Pages: 2752-2759Mathematical optimization offers highly-effective tools for finding solutions for problems with well-defined goals, notably scheduling. However, optimization solvers are often unexplainable black boxes whose solutions are inaccessible to users and which users cannot interact with. We define a novel paradigm using argumentation to empower the interaction between optimization solvers and users, supported by tractable explanations which certify or refute solutions. A solution can be from a solver or of interest to a user (in the context of 'what-if' scenarios). Specifically, we define argumentative and natural language explanations for why a schedule is (not) feasible, (not) efficient or (not) satisfying fixed user decisions, based on models of the fundamental makespan scheduling problem in terms of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). We define three types of AFs, whose stable extensions are in one-to-one correspondence with schedules that are feasible, efficient and satisfying fixed decisions, respectively. We extract the argumentative explanations from these AFs and the natural language explanations from the argumentative ones.
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.