Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks with Post-hoc Explanations for Multi-modal and Explainable Land Use Inference

Urban land use inference is a critically important task that aids in city planning and policy-making. Recently, the increased use of sensor and location technologies has facilitated the collection of multi-modal mobility data, offering valuable insights into daily activity patterns. Many studies have adopted advanced data-driven techniques to explore the potential of these multi-modal mobility data in land use inference. However, existing studies often process samples independently, ignoring the spatial correlations among neighbouring objects and heterogeneity among different services. Furthermore, the inherently low interpretability of complex deep learning methods poses a significant barrier in urban planning, where transparency and extrapolability are crucial for making long-term policy decisions. To overcome these challenges, we introduce an explainable framework for inferring land use that synergises heterogeneous graph neural networks (HGNs) with Explainable AI techniques, enhancing both accuracy and explainability. The empirical experiments demonstrate that the proposed HGNs significantly outperform baseline graph neural networks for all six land-use indicators, especially in terms of 'office' and 'sustenance'. As explanations, we consider feature attribution and counterfactual explanations. The analysis of feature attribution explanations shows that the symmetrical nature of the `residence' and 'work' categories predicted by the framework aligns well with the commuter's 'work' and 'recreation' activities in London. The analysis of the counterfactual explanations reveals that variations in node features and types are primarily responsible for the differences observed between the predicted land use distribution and the ideal mixed state. These analyses demonstrate that the proposed HGNs can suitably support urban stakeholders in their urban planning and policy-making.

Contestable AI needs Computational Argumentation

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making

The diversity of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them a promising candidate for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing a method for supplementing LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, we introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by the supplemented LLM may be naturally explained to, and contested by, humans. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification. We obtain results that are competitive with, and in some cases surpass, comparable state-of-the-art techniques.

Interval Abstractions for Robust Counterfactual Explanations

Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) have emerged as a major paradigm in explainable AI research, providing recourse recommendations for users affected by the decisions of machine learning models. However, when slight changes occur in the parameters of the underlying model, CEs found by existing methods often become invalid for the updated models. The literature lacks a way to certify deterministic robustness guarantees for CEs under model changes, in that existing methods to improve CEs' robustness are heuristic, and the robustness performances are evaluated empirically using only a limited number of retrained models. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel interval abstraction technique for parametric machine learning models, which allows us to obtain provable robustness guarantees of CEs under the possibly infinite set of plausible model changes $\Delta$. We formalise our robustness notion as the $\Delta$-robustness for CEs, in both binary and multi-class classification settings. We formulate procedures to verify $\Delta$-robustness based on Mixed Integer Linear Programming, using which we further propose two algorithms to generate CEs that are $\Delta$-robust. In an extensive empirical study, we demonstrate how our approach can be used in practice by discussing two strategies for determining the appropriate hyperparameter in our method, and we quantitatively benchmark the CEs generated by eleven methods, highlighting the effectiveness of our algorithms in finding robust CEs.

Can Large Language Models perform Relation-based Argument Mining?

Argument mining (AM) is the process of automatically extracting arguments, their components and/or relations amongst arguments and components from text. As the number of platforms supporting online debate increases, the need for AM becomes ever more urgent, especially in support of downstream tasks. Relation-based AM (RbAM) is a form of AM focusing on identifying agreement (support) and disagreement (attack) relations amongst arguments. RbAM is a challenging classification task, with existing methods failing to perform satisfactorily. In this paper, we show that general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs), appropriately primed and prompted, can significantly outperform the best performing (RoBERTa-based) baseline. Specifically, we experiment with two open-source LLMs (Llama-2 and Mistral) with ten datasets.

Robust Counterfactual Explanations in Machine Learning: A Survey

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are advocated as being ideally suited to providing algorithmic recourse for subjects affected by the predictions of machine learning models. While CEs can be beneficial to affected individuals, recent work has exposed severe issues related to the robustness of state-of-the-art methods for obtaining CEs. Since a lack of robustness may compromise the validity of CEs, techniques to mitigate this risk are in order. In this survey, we review works in the rapidly growing area of robust CEs and perform an in-depth analysis of the forms of robustness they consider. We also discuss existing solutions and their limitations, providing a solid foundation for future developments.

Recourse under Model Multiplicity via Argumentative Ensembling (Technical Report)

Model Multiplicity (MM) arises when multiple, equally performing machine learning models can be trained to solve the same prediction task. Recent studies show that models obtained under MM may produce inconsistent predictions for the same input. When this occurs, it becomes challenging to provide counterfactual explanations (CEs), a common means for offering recourse recommendations to individuals negatively affected by models' predictions. In this paper, we formalise this problem, which we name recourse-aware ensembling, and identify several desirable properties which methods for solving it should satisfy. We show that existing ensembling methods, naturally extended in different ways to provide CEs, fail to satisfy these properties. We then introduce argumentative ensembling, deploying computational argumentation to guarantee robustness of CEs to MM, while also accommodating customisable user preferences. We show theoretically and experimentally that argumentative ensembling satisfies properties which the existing methods lack, and that the trade-offs are minimal wrt accuracy.

Provably Robust and Plausible Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks via Robust Optimisation

Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) have received increasing interest as a major methodology for explaining neural network classifiers. Usually, CEs for an input-output pair are defined as data points with minimum distance to the input that are classified with a different label than the output. To tackle the established problem that CEs are easily invalidated when model parameters are updated (e.g. retrained), studies have proposed ways to certify the robustness of CEs under model parameter changes bounded by a norm ball. However, existing methods targeting this form of robustness are not sound or complete, and they may generate implausible CEs, i.e., outliers wrt the training dataset. In fact, no existing method simultaneously optimises for proximity and plausibility while preserving robustness guarantees. In this work, we propose Provably RObust and PLAusible Counterfactual Explanations (PROPLACE), a method leveraging on robust optimisation techniques to address the aforementioned limitations in the literature. We formulate an iterative algorithm to compute provably robust CEs and prove its convergence, soundness and completeness. Through a comparative experiment involving six baselines, five of which target robustness, we show that PROPLACE achieves state-of-the-art performances against metrics on three evaluation aspects.

Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges

As the field of explainable AI (XAI) is maturing, calls for interactive explanations for (the outputs of) AI models are growing, but the state-of-the-art predominantly focuses on static explanations. In this paper, we focus instead on interactive explanations framed as conflict resolution between agents (i.e. AI models and/or humans) by leveraging on computational argumentation. Specifically, we define Argumentative eXchanges (AXs) for dynamically sharing, in multi-agent systems, information harboured in individual agents' quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks towards resolving conflicts amongst the agents. We then deploy AXs in the XAI setting in which a machine and a human interact about the machine's predictions. We identify and assess several theoretical properties characterising AXs that are suitable for XAI. Finally, we instantiate AXs for XAI by defining various agent behaviours, e.g. capturing counterfactual patterns of reasoning in machines and highlighting the effects of cognitive biases in humans. We show experimentally (in a simulated environment) the comparative advantages of these behaviours in terms of conflict resolution, and show that the strongest argument may not always be the most effective.

Formalising the Robustness of Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks

The use of counterfactual explanations (CFXs) is an increasingly popular explanation strategy for machine learning models. However, recent studies have shown that these explanations may not be robust to changes in the underlying model (e.g., following retraining), which raises questions about their reliability in real-world applications. Existing attempts towards solving this problem are heuristic, and the robustness to model changes of the resulting CFXs is evaluated with only a small number of retrained models, failing to provide exhaustive guarantees. To remedy this, we propose the first notion to formally and deterministically assess the robustness (to model changes) of CFXs for neural networks, that we call {\Delta}-robustness. We introduce an abstraction framework based on interval neural networks to verify the {\Delta}-robustness of CFXs against a possibly infinite set of changes to the model parameters, i.e., weights and biases. We then demonstrate the utility of this approach in two distinct ways. First, we analyse the {\Delta}-robustness of a number of CFX generation methods from the literature and show that they unanimously host significant deficiencies in this regard. Second, we demonstrate how embedding {\Delta}-robustness within existing methods can provide CFXs which are provably robust.